7ba7de25   
   XPost: alt.news.macedonia, soc.culture.greek   
   From: smyrna@isgreek.net   
      
   andytoole@gmail.com wrote:   
   > On Apr 1, 4:25 pm, "Xtes-00k"  wrote:   
   >> West and Muslims Clash on Free Speech   
   >> Published: 4/1/08, 5:06 PM EDT   
   >> By ELIANE ENGELER   
   >> GENEVA (AP) - Muslim and Western nations clashed at the United Nations on   
   Tuesday after a measure backed by Islamic countries added monitoring religious   
   prejudice to the duties of a U.N. free speech expert.   
   >   
   > I didn't read the fine print, but I wonder what is wrong with such a   
   > demand per se ....   
   >> The U.N. investigator on freedom of opinion and expression is responsible   
   for reporting on repressive governments' restriction of free speech. The   
   change sponsored by Egypt and Pakistan now requires him to also report acts of   
   "racial or religious    
   discrimination" that constitute "abuse of the right of freedom of expression."   
   >   
   > Seems harmless enough, but it depends on how it gets interpreted by   
   > the courts.   
   >   
   >> The change passed 32-0 by the U.N. Human Rights Council on Friday was seen   
   as a move against forms of expression that have offended Muslims, such as   
   Danish newspaper cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad. The U.S., Canada and some   
   European countries said    
   the measure could curtail freedom of expression and help dictatorial regimes   
   block dissenting views.   
   >   
   > This is a danger. This cartoon/film business is problematic. It is   
   > difficult to make Westerners aware of how incredibly offensive such   
   > things are to Muslims, but it is equally difficult to explain to many   
   > Muslims how sacred the West holds the individual's right to speak his/   
   > her mind, or more specifically, one's right to be a jerk.   
   >> "The resolution adopted attempts to legitimize the criminalization of   
   expression," U.S. Ambassador Warren W. Tichenor told the 47-nation Human   
   Rights Council.   
   >>   
   >> European countries, Canada and some other nations abstained from voting   
   last week. The United States is not a member of the council but can speak as   
   an observer.   
   >>   
   >> Pakistani Ambassador Masood Khan said on behalf of the 57-nation   
   Organization of the Islamic Conference that the resolution would not limit   
   free speech and simply attempted to require people to exercise their freedom   
   of expression responsibly.   
   >   
   > Sounds sensible.   
      
   Sounds like paragraph 301 in Turkey of not insulting Turkishness which   
   can be interpreted any way the court wants.   
   >> Egypt's ambassador, Sameh Shoukry, said the right to freedom from religious   
   discrimination and defamation was not being sufficiently protected, permitting   
   "some of the worst practices that incite racial and religious hatred."   
   >   
   > And he's right. Look at how offensive that swastika-defaced Greek flag   
   > is. Imagine using the Swastika to attack the Greek Orthodox Church.   
   >> Some Islamic groups began demanding limits on free speech after the   
   caricatures of Muhammad provoked riots in 2006. Muslim countries also   
   protested the recent release of an anti-Islamic film by a Dutch lawmaker as   
   well as controversial comments by the    
   pope about Islam.   
   They don't seem to mind the freedom of " expression " of demonstrating   
   Muslims who demanded the head of the cartoonists.   
   >   
   > They have the right to protest, and the right to call for whatever   
   > sort of law they want. Whether or not such laws stand up in Western   
   > courts, however, is another matter. We've already been through this in   
   > the case of the "Last Temptation of Christ" and "P*ss Christ" and the   
   > jurisprudence doesn't exactly lend weight to the demands of the   
   > Islamic groups.   
   >> The Human Rights Council has no enforcement powers, but is supposed to act   
   as the world's moral conscience.   
   >   
   > I think they would be the ideal body to make blasphemous statements/   
   > films/images "morally illegal", as their pronouncements don't have the   
   > force of law, but are able to show how offensive some things can be,   
   > illegal or not.   
   >> It has been accused of spending excessive amounts of time focusing on   
   Israel while giving a free pass to countries with poor records of observing   
   human rights. The U.S. Senate voted in September to cut off U.S. funding for   
   the council, accusing it of    
   bias.   
   >   
   > Surprise surprise. Plenty of UN agencies get hijacked by single-   
   > interest groups that want to use them as a weapon, as opposed to a   
   > moral yardstick.   
   >> The council adopted a resolution last week urging countries to enact   
   anti-defamation laws to protect Muslims.   
   Who protected the 150 killed Christians who were murdered as a result of   
   the cartoon row?   
   >   
   > I don't see anything wrong with anti-defamation laws.   
      
   Those laws exists, we don't need new ones.   
   >> The Paris-based Reporters Without Borders warned that the change in job   
   description could shift Kenyan legal expert Ambeyi Ligabo's role as an   
   independent expert from protecting free speech toward limiting it.   
   >>   
   >> "It turns someone who is supposed to defend freedom of opinion into a   
   prosecutor whose job is to go after those who abuse this freedom," the group   
   said in a statement.   
   >   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)