As Canada’s National Post reports, they’re still at it:
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.
This isn’t the first time around for these resolutions, which, as the Ottawa Citizen explains, tend to be backed by many of the world’s most intolerant states. Eugene Volokh discussed the resolutions earlier this year in this and this post, citing last year’s General Assembly vote as “95-52, with nearly all the developed countries voted against.” It doesn’t look as if proponents are increasing their strength.
Say what you will about the major Religious Right groups in the U.S., they’ve mostly come down strongly on the right side of this particular issue. The National Post account quotes Bennett Graham, international program director with the religious-litigation strike force Becket Fund, as saying of the resolution, “It provides international cover for domestic anti-blasphemy laws, and there are a number of people who are in prison today because they have been accused of committing blasphemy.”
Clearly, the s on religions was just a side effect. Pretty obvious that the intent was to protect religion, or, one religion….
Pingback: » UN gives Islamic states ‘cover’ for an … Talk Islam
Irritating, but irrelevant. It’s not like Muslim nations would start respecting other people’s religions if the UN had come down hard against this. They’d still be hunting down Jews, imprisoning Christians, and killing Muslim apostates. I dunno that it actually provides any cover to those nations: is anyone who was opposed to the imprisonment and torture of religious dissidents now suddenly going to switch sides and say “Well, if the UN says its OK, it must be!” It is another smear on the validity of the United Nations, but those who support the UN have already decided that, no matter how imbalanced its actions are in favor of Muslim and 3rd World despots, they’re gonna stick by their guns.
This would certainly be interesting to watch if it passes. It would blow the left’s minds: they love the UN but it’s defending religion and limiting speech. They would go into overload.
I have a legal question though – given that this kind of restriction would violate our Constitution, could we remain a member of the UN if something of this type is adopted?
Might, it seems, makes right. Christians have been trying for years to pass off much less controversial language at the UN. Their mistake, it would seem, was stopping short of … whatever combination of shenanigans has landed Islam as the protected pet religion of the left.
I suspect the Religious Right in the US comes down on the right side of this question simply because in practice these anti-blasphemy laws discriminate against Christians in favor of non-Christian religions.
I agree that giving the Religious Right any credit here is not called for. Imagine what would happen to those of the Religious Right who “valiantly” try to proselytize others in certain countries!
Live and let live!
Pingback: Secular Right » Miscellany, Dec. 19