|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
 Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 7:21 pm Post subject: Defamation of Islam = Human Right's Violation? |
 |
|
http://www.unwatch.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=bdKKISNqEmG&b=1285603&content_id={AF491436-ED3D-46F5-8CC4-E14577482787}¬oc=1
| Article wrote: |
Geneva, March 11, 2009 � A new U.N. resolution circulated today by Islamic states would define any questioning of Islamic dogma as a human rights violation, intimidate dissenting voices, and encourage the forced imposition of Sharia law. (See full U.N. text below.)
UN Watch obtained a copy of the Pakistani-authored proposal after it was distributed today among Geneva diplomats attending the current session of the UN Human Rights Council. Entitled "Combating defamation of religions," it mentions only Islam.
While non-binding, the resolution constitutes a dangerous threat to free speech everywhere. It would ban any perceived offense to Islamic sensitivities as a "serious affront to human dignity" and a violation of religious freedom, and would pressure U.N. member states -- at the "local, national, regional and international levels" -- to erode free speech guarantees in their "legal and constitutional systems."
It's an Orwellian text that distorts the meaning of human rights, free speech, and religious freedom, and marks a giant step backwards for liberty and democracy worldwide.
The first to suffer will be moderate Muslims in the countries that are behind this resolution, like Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Pakistan, who seek international legitimacy for state-sanctioned blasphemy laws that stifle religious freedom and outlaw conversions from Islam to other faiths.
Next to suffer from this U.N.-sanctioned McCarthyism will be writers and journalists in the democratic West, with the resolution targeting the media for the "deliberate stereotyping of religions, their adherents and sacred persons."
Ultimately, it is the very notion of individual human rights at stake, because the sponsors of this resolution seek not to protect individuals from harm, but rather to shield a specific set of beliefs from any question, debate, or critical inquiry.
The resolution's core premise -- that "defamation of religion" exists as legal concept -- is a distortion. The law on defamation protects the reputations of individuals, not beliefs. It also requires an examination of the truth or falsity of the challenged remarks -- a determination that no one, especially not the UN, is capable of undertaking concerning any religion.
Tragically, given that Islamic states completely dominate the Human Rights Council, with the support of non-democratic members like Russia, China, and Cuba, adoption of the regressive resolution is a forgone conclusion. E.U. diplomats hope at best to win over a handful of wavering Latin American states to the dissenting side. |
A particularly disturbing segment of the resolution itself:
| Human Rights Council Resolution A/HRC/10/L wrote: |
Stressing that defamation of religions is a serious affront to human dignity leading to restriction on the freedom of religion of their adherents and incitement to religious hatred and violence,
Noting with concern that defamation of religions, and incitement to religious hatred in general, could lead to social disharmony and violations of human rights, and alarmed at the inaction of some States to combat this burgeoning trend and the resulting discriminatory practices against adherents of certain religions and in this context stressing the need to effectively combat defamation of all religions and incitement to religious hatred in general and against Islam and Muslims in particular,
|
The resolution may be non-binding, but honestly I don't particularly like anything that gives any sort of legitimacy what so ever to any attempt to curtail freedom of expression. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 7:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
"Human rights," like many other idealistic statements in world affairs (e.g., "citizenship/inclusiveness," "environmentalism," "democracy," or, in another era, the Soviets' "peace conferences"), often serves as little more than legitimating cover for this or that interest group to advance its interests. No more no less.
This should be especially evident anytime it comes from the United Nations. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CyberGuy
Joined: 27 Dec 2007
Location: Daejeon, Korea
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 8:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hmmm....
Lets see what does the word "defamation" mean:
1- A false accusation of an offense or a malicious misrepresentation of someone's words or actions
2- An abusive attack on a person's character or good name
So, you have problem that you cant slander and abusively attack Islam and its followers?
Does it take a genius mind to understand the difference between disagreeing in criticism vs. slandering and abusing?
I thought there would be another clause in UN's list of resolutions stating: Bitching about "UN's resolutions passed through consensus of majority of nations" is utter lewdness.
CG. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 8:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| CyberGuy wrote: |
Hmmm....
Lets see what does the word "defamation" mean:
1- A false accusation of an offense or a malicious misrepresentation of someone's words or actions
2- An abusive attack on a person's character or good name
So, you have problem that you cant slander and abusively attack Islam and its followers?
Does it take a genius mind to understand the difference between disagreeing in criticism vs. slandering and abusing?
I thought there would be another clause in UN's list of resolutions stating: Bitching about "UN's resolutions passed through consensus of majority of nations" is utter lewdness.
CG. |
My concern is that what constitutes defamation is very, very open to interpretation.
For example, if I produce a parody of Mohammed (or Jesus, or any religious figure) for purposes of humor, I would not consider that defamation. Certain Muslims would and do consider that defamation.
As another example, if I were to criticize Islam for condoning slavery, I would not consider that defamation. Certain Muslims would disagree with me and say I was defaming their religion by criticizing it.
In short, I feel that by asserting you cannot defame an abstract set of beliefs, you do far more than prevent it from being slandered. You create a barrier from it being legitimately criticized or mocked in a non-malicious fashion at all, and that's not okay.
I do feel people should be able to criticize, mock, and argue against belief systems. If I feel Christianity is ethically wrong, for instance, I should be able to campaign against it if I so choose, regardless of whether or not someone else would consider it defamation. If I want to make fun of Moses, I should be able to, even if some Jews might consider my parody false and damaging.
Do you really disagree with that? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bigverne
Joined: 12 May 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 8:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
1- A false accusation of an offense or a malicious misrepresentation of someone's words or actions
2- An abusive attack on a person's character or good name |
Laws of defamation or slander were rightly enacted to protect the reputation of individuals from malicious lies or rumour. They do not protect ideologies or belief systems from criticism, ridicule or mockery, so stop trying to force Shariah on people in other countries. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rusty Shackleford
Joined: 08 May 2008
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 9:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
1- A false accusation of an offense or a malicious misrepresentation of someone's words or actions |
Hmmm. Most accusations against Islam aren't "false." Also, "misrepresentations of someone's words" implies the thing you are slandering has to be a person. Last time I checked Islam wasn't a person.
| Quote: |
| 2- An abusive attack on a person's character or good name |
See above. Islam is not a "person." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Yu_Bum_suk
Joined: 25 Dec 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 10:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| CyberGuy wrote: |
Hmmm....
Lets see what does the word "defamation" mean:
1- A false accusation of an offense or a malicious misrepresentation of someone's words or actions
2- An abusive attack on a person's character or good name
So, you have problem that you cant slander and abusively attack Islam and its followers?
Does it take a genius mind to understand the difference between disagreeing in criticism vs. slandering and abusing?
I thought there would be another clause in UN's list of resolutions stating: Bitching about "UN's resolutions passed through consensus of majority of nations" is utter lewdness.
CG. |
So if I think that Mohammed was never visited by an angel and is thereby full fo shit am I defaming him? Am I defaming you if I say you follow teachings that are shit? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 11:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Yu_Bum_suk wrote: |
| So if I think that Mohammed was never visited by an angel and is thereby full fo shit am I defaming him? Am I defaming you if I say you follow teachings that are shit? |
I do not believe that God granted the Prophet a tour of Jerusalem via magic carpet anymore than I believe that God visited Osman in a dream and tasked him to create a world empire or that God visited Murad II in a dream, offering him a rose and instructing him to conquer Salonica.
But the way you articulate your disagreement is disrespectful, unduly antagonistic and confrontational, and simply inappropriate. Why must you dismiss religion so angrily? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Yu_Bum_suk
Joined: 25 Dec 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 11:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| Yu_Bum_suk wrote: |
| So if I think that Mohammed was never visited by an angel and is thereby full fo shit am I defaming him? Am I defaming you if I say you follow teachings that are shit? |
I do not believe that God granted the Prophet a tour of Jerusalem via magic carpet anymore than I believe that God visited Osman in a dream and tasked him to create a world empire or that God visited Murad II in a dream, offering him a rose and instructing him to conquer Salonica.
But the way you articulate your disagreement is disrespectful, unduly antagonistic and confrontational, and simply inappropriate. Why must you dismiss religion so angrily? |
It's not anger; it's derision. And it's what adults who believe in fairy tales like that deserve.
And when people want to make their cows sacred through legislation, they're quite frankly worthy of contempt. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 25, 2009 11:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I thought Canadians were supposed to be excessively polite, nonassertive, embarrassed to complain or protest this or that?
Yet here comes another one, in love with his own overly harsh atheism, to ridicule and dismiss the Islamic faith in a style about as insensitive as it gets... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Leslie Cheswyck
Joined: 31 May 2003
Location: University of Western Chile
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Otherside
Joined: 06 Sep 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 26, 2009 3:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| ragically, given that Islamic states completely dominate the Human Rights Council, with the support of non-democratic members like Russia, China, and Cuba, adoption of the regressive resolution is a forgone conclusion. E.U. diplomats hope at best to win over a handful of wavering Latin American states to the dissenting side |
This paragraph is pretty damn misleading. There are 47 members of the UN Human rights council. 9 are Muslim. NINE...that's a far cry from "completely dominating" Heck there are 7 ultra liberal Western Democracies on the council. Judging by the make-up of the council, this proposal has little chance of being passed. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
CyberGuy
Joined: 27 Dec 2007
Location: Daejeon, Korea
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 26, 2009 7:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| Yu_Bum_suk wrote: |
......
.... |
I do not believe that God granted the Prophet a tour of Jerusalem via magic carpet anymore than I believe that God visited Osman in a dream and tasked him to create a world empire or that God visited Murad II in a dream, offering him a rose and instructing him to conquer Salonica.
But the way you articulate your disagreement is disrespectful, unduly antagonistic and confrontational, and simply inappropriate. Why must you dismiss religion so angrily? |
Agreed.
I think people do not understand that the position of a Muslim vs. Hindu or Muslim vs. Christian etc. is similar in the sense that they DISAGREE on many things and agree some/many.
So, atheists need to disagree and need not to believe in the religion they disagree. They need not to cuss or use slang about any religion. I believe decent people do not solely belong to theist or atheist. Atheist and theists both have good people in them and they DO disagree with each other too, but they simply choose to disagree without cussing and using dirty words.
On the other hand, I see whores are also not the property of only one group of people. So the result is, you see people of low lives like Yu Bum Suk who are trying to get rid of their anger by spitting and pooping over the people who disagree with his/her belief. Maybe people like Yu Bum Suk were ill-treated in their childhood, maybe their parents did not treat them well in their childhood or abused them, or various other bitter experiences came in their way.
Surely, extent of disagreement is a subjective issue. Some low lives think they can only "champion" the art of critique through intensification of talk by cussing, mocking and using a lot of slang about other people's beliefs.. I am yet to see good speakers, professor, intellectual cussing and barking like dogs and oinking like pigs and still get away with their respect in the society.
Even for the sake of argument you want to use slang, then you might want to use it to a person you are arguing with than attacking his belief or his associates. For example, it would not be appropriate to start cussing or using slang with reference to some person's mother or father. Yet, cussing or insulting somebody's faith is much gross and horrible thing; at least for Muslims, their Prophet is more sacred for them than themselves or their parents.
So Gropher, I do not have any problem if you think that Prophet Muhammad was not a Prophet and Qur'an is a book of fairy tales, as far as you could stay civilized and even if you disagree, you could still be respected by the people who might not agree with you. After all, it is civility and intellect which makes us unlike animals, and.... it is barking, oinking and attacking other people with hate which makes one look worthless and cheap.
If you wild atheists think you are better than theists, then you better be more civilized and act unlike baboons and you will sound more sensible. If you condemn theists for being violent and spreading hatred, yet you are spreading hatred yourself then you are nothing but HYPOCRITES. If you think theism is spreading hatred then where is your love?? At the moment I see most of you are hanging upside down on the branches of a tree which is watered by the blood of theists, specially the blood of Muslims.
In all my life, I have not written one post anywhere just to bash and insult atheists in the wild way. All I am doing in this forum is defense..... defense.... and defense... and the attackers are Atheists most of the time.
CG.
P.S. Do I need to mention I have atheist friends too? Its just that they do not oink. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bigverne
Joined: 12 May 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 26, 2009 7:38 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| at least for Muslims, their Prophet is more sacred for them than themselves or their parents |
And that is your problem, not ours. If you want to execute people in your countries for 'defaming' your prophet, then that is your perogative. But we, in the West, or other countries where criticising or mocking a historical figure, religious or otherwise, is not a criminal offence, do not have to abide by your values, so stop trying to force them on us.
By the way, is describing a race of people as apes and pigs spreading hatred, in your book? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
postfundie
Joined: 28 May 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 26, 2009 7:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| a minority can easily bully a majority or browbeat others into silence or at the very least set the agenda |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
