United Nations Affirms the Human Right to Blaspheme

[rug]

Having followed the debates on religion and freedom of expression at the United Nations over the last several years, I have become accustomed to passing on bad news, such as a decade of resolutions by the Human Rights Council and the General Assembly “combating the defamation of religions.” Now that there is some good news, almost no one has noticed.

Late last month, the UN issued a new statement on the extent of freedom of speech under international law. It says that laws restricting blasphemy as such are incompatible with universal human rights standards.

The statement came from the Human Rights Committee, the body of eighteen “independent experts” mandated to monitor compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, or ICCPR, the 1966 human rights treaty that provides for freedom of opinion and expression and other fundamental rights. The Committee’s general comments represent authoritative interpretations of the provisions of the ICCPR. Unlike the highly-publicized resolutions produced by the Human Rights Council and the General Assembly, the provisions of the ICCPR are legally binding to its more than 165 parties.

The detailed 52-paragraph statement, General Comment No. 34, is the outcome of two years of intense debate among representatives of governments and civil society organizations. The Committee’s previous comment on freedom of opinion and expression, in 1983, was only four paragraphs long. In addition to taking up such matters as treason, defamation of heads of state, “memory laws” enforcing an official version of history, and the rights of bloggers, Comment 34 comes down strongly against religious limitations on speech. It does so not only by asserting that the right to free speech is foundational to a free and democratic society as well as to the protection and promotion of other rights. It also appeals explicitly to the values of freedom of conscience and equality before the law.

http://www.religiondispatches.org/archive/politics/4985/united_nations_affirms_the_human_right_to_blaspheme/

[laconicsax]

1. Well fuck the holy ghost, how do you like that?

That's a win for free speech

[cleanhippie]

2. And Free Speech, for the WIN!

Can we assume that you agree with the decision, rug?

[rug]

4. Basicly.

And I note that nowhere in the 15 pages does it assert the right to be a douchebag.

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrc/docs/GC34.pdf

Outside this country free speech is in an interesting struggle. There are the hate crime laws in the EU and then there are the blasphemy laws in conservative islamic countries. I think this report addresses that spectrum.

[cleanhippie]

5. .

[laconicsax]

8. Hmm...so free speech should be limited to the most polite?

When it comes to religion, hypersensitivity is considered as having a thick skin. Take "sky-daddy" as an example--the god of the Bible lives in the clouds and is regarded as a father-figure, yet calling that father who lives in the clouds a "sky-daddy" is taken as an insult by believers.

Similarly, saying that a childish story about how rainbows are God's promise to never drown everyone again is essentially a fairy-tale is also seen as disrespectful simply because it's in the Bible even though no sane or intelligent person believes that any part of it is true.

[rug]

9. No, but it should be intelligent.

[darkstar3]

10. This just in from the irony department...

[rug]

14. This just in from the predicatable response department.

[darkstar3]

27. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again while expecting different results.

;)

[rug]

30. You're right. I should stop responding to you.

[laconicsax]

11. Why do you feel the need to put arbitrary, subjective restrictions on free speech?

[darkstar3]

12. Because just like so many others, he doesn't like people speaking poorly about his church.

After all, there was a very long time where that shit just didn't fly, and they're still getting used to it.

[rug]

17. Since there's nothing in this thread about that, I presume you're questioning motives again.

That shit just doesn't fly.

[Name removed]

25. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rug]

29. There you go. That wasn't hard.

[rug]

15. Why do you feel the need to insert your own words in my posts?

[laconicsax]

18. Oh, I'm sorry...did you not intend your limiting critera to be well, limiting?

:shrug:

[rug]

20. That's ok, just don't do it again.

[laconicsax]

23. Do what? Read limiting criteria as limiting criteria?

[rug]

24. I think you'll have a more satisfying time typing and replying to yourself.

[laconicsax]

32. More satisfying than what?

[ZombieHorde]

13. Who's definition of intelligent?

Few people think their own logic or dogma is stupid.

[rug]

16. Whose.

[laconicsax]

19. Sentence fragment

[ZombieHorde]

21. OK; I erred. So whose definition of intelligent speech? nt

[rug]

22. Just the common one.

The fact is name-calling, especially repetitive, cliched name-calling, meets no definition of intelligence. Nor does it lead to a discussion or communication of ideas. In short, it's stupid. And I'm not referring to your posts. Look around, you'll find plenty of examples.

[darkstar3]

26. Discussion requires dissenting viewpoints,

which is something you have a clearly expressed bias against. Furthermore, as someone who spends the majority of his time on this board posting one-liners designed specifically to shut down discussion, you are in absolutely no position to educate anyone on what leads to "discussion or communication of ideas."

[rug]

28. Dissenting viewpoints are fine. Assholes are not.

Oh, was that one line?

Or were you expecting a discussion with that post?

[darkstar3]

31. I expected exactly that.^

[rug]

33. Glad I didn't misread you.

[ZombieHorde]

34. I agree insults in debates are fallacious, but there is a lot of gray area.

Unfortunately, we don't all agree on what is insulting. For some people, saying gods are imaginary beings akin to all other supernatural beings, is very insulting, but is the claim fallacious? I think the arguments both for and against the claim could be grounded in logic.

Or the claim there are no celestial virgins, and suicide bombers have wasted their lives in an act of senseless violence. This claim is probably very offensive to some people.

[darkstar3]

3. Well at least some world leaders have a tiny amount of sense.

Of course, if they had close to an ounce between them, it wouldn't have taken "two years of intense debate."

[DonCoquixote]

6. expect the office of islamic states

to protest, and no that is not bigotry, as the oas has no more right to speak for all Muslims than a ham sandwich.

[RC]

7. And a non Muslim says something against Muhammad?

That is what this covers

[Adsos Letter]

35. "...Comment 34 comes down strongly against religious limitations on speech."

Good. :thumbsup: