The World According To Carl

Islamic countries Monday won United Nations backing for an anti-blasphemy measure Canada and other Western critics say risks being used to limit freedom of speech.

Combating Defamation of Religions passed 85-50 with 42 abstentions in a key UN General Assembly committee, and will enter into the international record after an expected rubber stamp by the plenary later in the year.
…
Western democracies argue that a religion can’t enjoy protection from criticism because that would require a judicial ruling that its teachings are the “truth.”

“Defamation carries a particular legal meaning and application in domestic systems that makes the term wholly unsuitable in the context of religions,” says the U.S. government in a response on the issue to the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights.

“A defamatory statement . . . is more than just an offensive one. It is also a statement that is false.”

The paper also points out the legal difficulty of even defining the term “defamation” since “one individual’s sincere belief that his or her creed alone is the truth conflicts with another’s sincerely held view of the truth.”
…
Canada and other Western countries emphasize the distinction between granting an “idea” rights - and defending the right of people not to be discriminated against.

“Canada rejects the basic premise that religions have rights; human rights belong to human beings,” said Catherine Loubier, spokeswoman for Foreign Affairs Minister Lawrence Cannon.

“The focus (here) should not be on protecting religions, but rather on protecting the rights of the adherents of religions, including of people belonging to religious minorities, or people who may choose to change their religion, or not to practice religion at all.”
…
“From the human rights side of things, this is the opposite of what is supposed to be happening,” said [Bennett Graham, international program director with the Becket Fund, a think tank aimed at promoting religious liberty]. “Instead of protecting an individual, this resolution protects an idea, and relies on hurt feelings as a source of judgment. It can only lead to a jurisprudence of hurt feelings.”

Is there any legimitate reason to allow the UN HQ to be on U.S. soil anymore? I, for one, wouldn’t mind seeing it go elsewhere. Either the UN is going to render itself completely moot and impotent or else it will be a driving force (if not the driving force) for international law implementations.

Trackposted to Rosemary’s Thoughts, Take Our Country Back, The Pink Flamingo - Wordpress, Allie is Wired, Woman Honor Thyself, DragonLady’s World, Democrat=Socialist, Conservative Cat, and Gone Hollywood. Also, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.