REVIEW RSS FEED
OBAMA SIGNS ON TO FREE SPEECH SUPPRESSION
Stuart Taylor Jr, National Journal - It was nice to hear Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton say on October 26, "I strongly disagree" with Islamic countries seeking to censor free speech worldwide by making defamation of religion a crime under international law.
But watch what the Obama administration does, not just what it says. . . I'm talking about a little-publicized October 2 resolution in which Clinton's own State Department joined Islamic nations in adopting language all-too-friendly to censoring speech that some religions and races find offensive.
The ambiguously worded United Nations Human Rights Council resolution could plausibly be read as encouraging or even obliging the U.S. to make it a crime to engage in hate speech, or, perhaps, in mere "negative racial and religious stereotyping." This despite decades of First Amendment case law protecting such speech.
To be sure, the provisions to which I refer were a compromise, stopping short of the flat ban on defamation of religion sought by Islamic nations, and they could also be construed more narrowly and innocuously. It all depends on who does the construing.
Is it "negative stereotyping" to say that the world's most dangerous terrorists are Islamists, for example? Many would say yes.
. . . The real problem is a provision, which the U.S. championed jointly with Egypt, exuding hostility to free expression.
That provision "expresses its concern that incidents of racial and religious intolerance, discrimination and related violence, as well as of negative racial and religious stereotyping 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"
What is this clot of verbiage supposed to mean?
It could be read narrowly as a commitment merely to denounce and eschew hate speech. But it could more logically be read broadly as requiring the United States and other nations to punish "hostile" speech about -- and perhaps also "negative stereotyping" of -- any race or religion. It's a safe bet, however, that the Islamic nations that are so concerned about criticisms of their religion will not be prosecuting anyone for the rampant "negative racial and ethnic stereotyping" and hate speech in their own countries directed at Jews and sometimes Christians.
But watch what the Obama administration does, not just what it says. . . I'm talking about a little-publicized October 2 resolution in which Clinton's own State Department joined Islamic nations in adopting language all-too-friendly to censoring speech that some religions and races find offensive.
The ambiguously worded United Nations Human Rights Council resolution could plausibly be read as encouraging or even obliging the U.S. to make it a crime to engage in hate speech, or, perhaps, in mere "negative racial and religious stereotyping." This despite decades of First Amendment case law protecting such speech.
To be sure, the provisions to which I refer were a compromise, stopping short of the flat ban on defamation of religion sought by Islamic nations, and they could also be construed more narrowly and innocuously. It all depends on who does the construing.
Is it "negative stereotyping" to say that the world's most dangerous terrorists are Islamists, for example? Many would say yes.
. . . The real problem is a provision, which the U.S. championed jointly with Egypt, exuding hostility to free expression.
That provision "expresses its concern that incidents of racial and religious intolerance, discrimination and related violence, as well as of negative racial and religious stereotyping 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"
What is this clot of verbiage supposed to mean?
It could be read narrowly as a commitment merely to denounce and eschew hate speech. But it could more logically be read broadly as requiring the United States and other nations to punish "hostile" speech about -- and perhaps also "negative stereotyping" of -- any race or religion. It's a safe bet, however, that the Islamic nations that are so concerned about criticisms of their religion will not be prosecuting anyone for the rampant "negative racial and ethnic stereotyping" and hate speech in their own countries directed at Jews and sometimes Christians.
3 Comments:
The Obama administration has little fondness for Constitutional protections for individuals, and most certainly has no love of freedom of speech. There is no expectation that this one time scholar president will support the Constitution that he reputedly taught.
Is it any wonder that our national heritage is in such great disrepair? When the instructors in our law schools see the Constitution as no more than silly putty to be twisted and distorted for the amusement or gain of the moment.
Given Obama's willingness to slaughter even more people in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan, for no reasonable, or even discernible purpose, agreeing to the edicts of Theocrats is not a great sin. It rather demonstrates how congenial, ecumenical and Lincolnesque he is.
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=15809
In the early hours of Wednesday October 14, the body of Yousef Hamdan Abu Zuhri, brother of a Hamas spokesman, Dr. Sami Abu Zuhri was handed down to the Palestinian side in Gaza. Yousef died in Burj al Arab prison in Alexandria, Egypt .
The pictures obtained by Palestine Now show signs of brutal and horrible torture all over his body.
According to Palestinian medical sources at Abu Yousef Al Najjar Hospital in Rafah, the body of martyr Abu Zuhri was handed over without Internal viscera and most of his tongue was amputated.
These are some photos obtained by Palestine Now for the body of the martyr, the rest of the pictures were too horrific to be published.
We also knew that Yousef died 4 days before the announcement of his death. He was subjected to very high electric shocks for long periods and as a result of torture he lost his sight more than a month before his death.
Please, send to your groups in Europe and America and ask them to send to the Egyptian embassies asking for investigation and sending those who are responsible to justice and the most important thing is to ask the Egyptian government to free the rest of Palestinians detained in Egyptian prisons.
The Egyptian Interior ministry claimed that Yousef Hamdan Abu Zuhri died of ‘Natural Causes’!
http://paltimes.net/arabic/news.php?news_id=101278
Please, put presure on the Egyptian government to free the rest of the prisoners before they face the same destiny as poor Yousef, God rest his soul.
This makes no sense. It is not possible for any dogmatic religion to preach its beliefs without blaspheming all the other religions. Atheists in particular could not argue their point of view without exhibiting hostility to religion. Is that the real point of the whole notion?
Post a Comment
<< Home