Sec. of State Clinton discourages laws against defaming religion (blasphemy)

[alp227]

Clinton speaks against anti-defamation laws
by William Wan
Oct. 27, 2009
The Washington Post

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton criticized on Monday an attempt by Islamic countries to prohibit defamation of religions, saying such policies would restrict free speech.

"Some claim that the best way to protect the freedom of religion is to implement so-called anti-defamation policies. . . . I strongly disagree," Clinton said. "The protection of speech about religion is particularly important since persons of different faiths will inevitably hold divergent views on religious questions."

While unnamed in Clinton's speech, the Organization of the Islamic Conference, a group of 56 Islamic nations, has been pushing hard for the U.N. Human Rights Council to adopt resolutions that broadly bar the defamation of religion. The effort has raised concerns that such resolutions could be used to justify crackdowns on free speech in Muslim countries.

Clinton made her comments while unveiling the State Department's annual report on international religious freedom.

Many advocates of religious freedom applauded Clinton's remarks on blasphemy laws, but some said the report did not go far enough in censuring or proposing action against countries with a track record of abuses or persecution on religious grounds.

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/26/AR2009102603218.html

Huh? Earlier in the month, apparently the Obama administration believed the opposite - ENCOURAGING anti-blasphemy law as I posted earlier.

[struggle4progress]

1. Apparently, earlier in the month, you hadn't read the text of the resolution that you

were complaining about. And, apparently, you still haven't read it. I posted a Spanish version in the previous thread, because I could find it easily. Do feel free to point out what's frightening about it. If you prefer to find and post an English version, feel free -- but be sure to use A/HRC/12/L.14/Rev.1 (from September 2009) and not A/HRC/12/L.14/ (from 2005)

[Jim__]

2. Here is an English version.

I'm not sure if this is the entire document that you referred to.

A brief excerpt from this document:

Recognizing the importance of all forms of the media, including the printed media, radio,
television and the Internet, in the exercise, promotion and protection of the right to freedom of
opinion and expression,
Recalling that the exercise of the right to freedom of expression carries with it special
duties and responsibilities, in accordance with article 19 (3) of the International Covenant on
Civil and Political Rights,
Recalling also that States should encourage free, responsible and mutually respectful
dialogue,
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;
2. Takes note of the report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of
the right to freedom of opinion and expression (A/HRC/11/4), as well as his presentation and the
interactive dialogue thereon at its eleventh session;

...

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 (...), to address and
combat such incidents;

[struggle4progress]

3. That seems to be the document under discussion: it has the same control number and date

as the Spanish version I posted earlier

[alp227]

5. The resolution looks like a good thing, but when does speech cross the line into harm?

Governments should take action against racial/religious/other stereotyping (President Obama recently signed the hate-crime bill to protect the LGBT people, for example), but should not do so to provide religious people with a luxury. Also, mere criticism of religion (on the line of "religion sucks") vs. Hitleresque rhetoric ("All people of this religion should be gassed") must be differentiated period.

Democracy means something only if South Park continues to be able to mock the Catholic Church and the Religious Right in general while their targets still get to preach whatever wacko stuff they want to from the pulpit.

[struggle4progress]

6. If you're going to discuss the hate crimes bill, at least read it first so that

you know what it actually says: I've posted some text from it here at least twice in the last few days, so I'm pretty sure you can find the text yourself by a bit of web-searching

[rd_kent]

4. Wouldnt anti-blasphemy laws work AGAINST religion?

If Muslims say "Islam is the one true faith, blah, blah, blah..", couldn't other religion claim that THAT statement is blasphemous to their religion?

[alp227]

7. The problem with anti-blasphemy laws

is that they tend to provide a luxury for the majority religion so that they don't have to hear others trash talk their faith. Think Ireland (recently having passed such a silly law) or any Islamic state. For instance in Ireland I'd bet that the law would apply only to those who defame Catholicism, but if the authorities hear about people blaspheming Islam or Hinduism they'll just throw the case file on the bottom of the pile just so that they can assist the heartbroken Catholic.

Heck, in the UK, there used to be a law protecting the Church of England from defamation! The UK government repealed the law last year. Kudos to them.

Your point about religion saying "I'm the one true faith" makes a good point. Another obvious example: The Ten Commandments. Makes a good model for a theoretical anti-blasphemy law. Two of them: "You shall have no other gods before me" and "You shall not make wrongful use of the name of your God", in other words making a huge irony: You cannot ruin a god's good name, but you must say that your god is the ONLY god, thus ruining other religions' holy spirits. Imagine what would happen if President Obama signed a law that'd protect EVERYONE of a faith or none from supposed defamation. Under the Ten Commandments logic, EVERYONE would have to pay a fine or be incarcerated.