Page 1 of 2
#1
Alright... I am definitely not the type of person who is in to politics. In fact, I could really care less for 90% of the crap going on around the world today.
However, I came across this and it just really pisses me off to hear such BS.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ji-qdC5zYd4

Ok, if you want to embrace religion.. then go ahead. But making not believing an illegal offense?... that is absolutely INSANE. Demanding respect for religion? Imagine that? To take away the rights of people to actually be able to speak their mind on their own beliefs.
UN has lost any moral authority they might have had IMO.
"When sh*t becomes valuable, the poor will be born without assholes."
#4
The U.N had moral authority?
Quote by vintage x metal
My toilet has seen some scenes that one would describe as 'deathcore'
#7
Quote by identityxcrysis
Giving them special treatment over other religions just causes MORE discrimination.


its all religions actually, obviously in aid of islam but any defamation of any religion would not be tolerated.
#8
Quote by CHIEF-CHEESE
**** religion. When are we going to move past our bronze age bull**** fairy tales and start thinking logically? It's funny how they report this story as specifically criminalizing criticizing the one religion we think we are at war with. We're all OK with banning blasphemy against christianity or judaism but...
HOLD UP WE CAN'T MAKE FUN OF MUSLIMS OMGZ..!!!



Unintelligent arguments attacking the intelligence and primitiveness of religion are as bad as the religions themselves.
Quote by vintage x metal
My toilet has seen some scenes that one would describe as 'deathcore'
Last edited by manmanster at Mar 3, 2009,
#9
Quote by CHIEF-CHEESE
We're all OK with banning blasphemy against christianity or judaism but...

I'm not.
I'LL PUNCH A DONKEY IN THE STREETS OF GALWAY
#11
this is the most angry ive been at the UN since i got bumped off the lithuanian representative seat in favor of that tool Renatas Norkus!
.
..
...
I have no opinion on this matter.
#12
...

fail


luckily the UN is about as effective at resolving conflict as paper is effective against rock (who you fooling paper?)
Last.Fm

“If there was anything that depressed him more than his own cynicism, it was that quite often it still wasn't as cynical as real life.”
― Terry Pratchett

qft...



Jeremy Clarkson is a knob.
#14
Quote by CHIEF-CHEESE
**** religion. When are we going to move past our bronze age bull**** fairy tales and start thinking logically? It's funny how they report this story as specifically criminalizing criticizing the one religion we think we are at war with. We're all OK with banning blasphemy against christianity or judaism but...
HOLD UP WE CAN'T MAKE FUN OF MUSLIMS OMGZ..!!!


well we cant, if we say anything bad about there all might allah they might take some time to rub the sand out of their eyes and but cracks and suicide bomb us some more.
#15
At a glance, it seems to me that this is being blow way out of proportion. This is certainly way off the mark:
Quote by MetalManiac_86
Ok, if you want to embrace religion.. then go ahead. But making not believing an illegal offense?... that is absolutely INSANE. Demanding respect for religion? Imagine that? To take away the rights of people to actually be able to speak their mind on their own beliefs.


Here is the text of relevant document (note para 16 is the one incompletely quoted in the video).
http://www.unwatch.org/atf/cf/%7B6DEB65DA-BE5B-4CAE-8056-8BF0BEDF4D17%7D/DEFAMATION2008UNGA.PDF

Note that the video did note quote the entire paragraph, which, in context, sounds less 'shocking' (bold text was excluded in the video).
Quote by A/C.3/63/L.22/Rev.1
16. Urges all States to provide, within their respective legal and constitutional systems, adequate protection against acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from defamation of religions, and incitement to religious hatred in general, to take all possible measures to promote tolerance and respect for all religions and beliefs and the understanding of their value systems and to complement legal systems with intellectual and moral strategies to combat religious hatred and intolerance;


While my knowledge of international law is limited, especially the subtleties of the UN, nothing in the document suggests that member states will be required to pass religious defamation laws. As I understand it most GA resolutions are non-binding. I suggest that the passage of any such laws would be highly unlikely given their inconsistency with fundamental human rights in most Western democracies. Most laws that do exist along these lines prevent publications that incite religious hatred, not publications criticising religion.

Notwithstanding that, the history of religious defamation laws (typically referred to as 'blasphemy' or 'blasphemous libel') in common law states suggests that any such law will have a 'good faith' defence, and that the court will require the most 'heinous' of statements before a conviction is given. See for example Whitehouse v Lemon [1979] 2 WLR 281, which involved a poem written from the viewpoint of a Roman centurion which graphically described him having sex with Jesus after his crucifixion, and also claimed that Jesus had had sex with numerous disciples, guards, and Pontius Pilate. (Even so, I would say this decision would be highly unlikely in today's society)

Edit:
If interested, here is the voting list.
http://www.un.org/ga/third/63/votingsheets/l22rev1religions.pdf

Also remember this resolution only urges member nations...

Edit edit:
Also note:
"adequate protection against acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from defamation of religions"

- the protection is not against religious defamation. It is against the harm resulting from religious defamation. This is different to the interpretation most people seem to be giving it. Notwithstanding my own religious views I agree entirely that people should be protected from acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion that result from defamation of religions.
Last edited by Kiwi Ace at Mar 3, 2009,
#16
America won't let this happen.

and WHAT THE HELL - Christianity is slagged all over the world. i'm not religious, but if i were i would still respect the opinions of others and i wouldnt want to stifle other people's freedoms.

seriously, some people need to get over how important they think their religion is.

just like that guy said - "The Pope gets criticised for an off the cuff remark/violence is the response, but when a cartoon is published in Denmark we can't criticise them lest they think it blasphemous"

human rights > religion
Quote by mh.666
This man is right.


My life in all aspects is going fucking brilliantly, so I just thought I'd offer a cyncial scrap of wisdom, gloat a little, and then leave.
#17
Pfft..
The media at work again..

Edit: It's not like anyone listens to UN anyway
#18
Oh...better use my last chance then.

**** JUDAISM! **** CHRISTIANITY! **** ISLAM! **** ALL RELIGIONS 'CAUSE THEY ALL SUCK BALLS!

But seriously...
human rights > religion
Quote by RoamingConflict
This one dream involved me, one random girl, midgets and a pie.


...and midgets ended up f*cking her. I got the pie.


#20
Quote by Kiwi Ace
Freedom of religion and freedom from religious persecution are human rights. Important and fundamental ones at that.



criticising a religion is not persecution
Quote by mh.666
This man is right.


My life in all aspects is going fucking brilliantly, so I just thought I'd offer a cyncial scrap of wisdom, gloat a little, and then leave.
#21
I can't criticize it? But islam has alot of stupid rules... along with every religion.
████████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
█████████████████████████
██████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
#22
So they want to restrict the freedom of our speech? "You have the freedom of speech,aslong as you don't say this, this or this".

And what about the WBC? If I'm not aloud to say anything bad about a religon I'm not to bothered by I don't want to see them speak at all.
El-Danny

Quote by americnidiot
You keep seeing songs like KoC, SMBH, and Hysteria showing up on games, but I want Micro Cuts on either Rock Band or Sing Star. I want to see numerous masses of kids staring at the tv wondering what the hell they're supposed to do.
#23
Quote by MetalManiac_86
Alright... I am definitely not the type of person who is in to politics. In fact, I could really care less for 90% of the crap going on around the world today.
However, I came across this and it just really pisses me off to hear such BS.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ji-qdC5zYd4

Ok, if you want to embrace religion.. then go ahead. But making not believing an illegal offense?... that is absolutely INSANE. Demanding respect for religion? Imagine that? To take away the rights of people to actually be able to speak their mind on their own beliefs.
UN has lost any moral authority they might have had IMO.


You really couldn't care less you mean?
Member of the 7-String + ERG Legion.
#24
Quote by dudius
Religious tolerance: GET SOME!


This^. If you dont believe in a religion then thats your choice. But dont be an ignorant troll and bash a religion. And no I dont agree with what the UN is doing
Quote by Argonaut
^ Wrong Kensai.


Quote by Sean-Man
I may be a Narcissist, But im the Best Narcissist
#25
ITTTTTTTTTS PAYYYYYYYBACKKKKKK TIMMMMMMMMMMMME AT THE UNITED ABOMINNNNNNNATTTTTTTTTIONNNNNNNNNNNNSSSSSSSSS!

in other news ... meh.
My Musical attempts

My youtube music channel

Quote by TOMMYB22
Dammit, beaten to it, and by someone with the same name

CURSE YOU TOMMYT!!!!!!!!!!!!


Quote by daeqwon10000
I hate tommyt and the high horse which he rides upon
#27
Rules about that already in the UK. Complete bullshit.
Is it still a God Complex if I really am God?

America is the only country that went from barbarism to decadence without civilization in between.
Oscar Wilde
#29
i believe we can say what we want about any religion, just so long as we don't act on any bad things we say.
??? Fund: cba to keep up with it.
will at least try when I get a jerb
੧_\\\

yours,

Alex (mcfreaki)
#30
Quote by mcfreaki
i believe we can say what we want about any religion, just so long as we don't act on any bad things we say.


Legally yeah. But I dont think we should bash a religion by choice either. I wouldn't say something like **** ISLAM of **** WICCA! or **** SCIENTOLOGISTS! because it would just make me sound like an ignorant chode. like this
Quote by CHIEF-CHEESE
**** religion. When are we going to move past our bronze age bull**** fairy tales and start thinking logically? It's funny how they report this story as specifically criminalizing criticizing the one religion we think we are at war with. We're all OK with banning blasphemy against christianity or judaism but...
HOLD UP WE CAN'T MAKE FUN OF MUSLIMS OMGZ..!!!


See what I mean?
Quote by Argonaut
^ Wrong Kensai.


Quote by Sean-Man
I may be a Narcissist, But im the Best Narcissist
#32
Quote by Kiwi Ace
At a glance, it seems to me that this is being blow way out of proportion. This is certainly way off the mark:


Here is the text of relevant document (note para 16 is the one incompletely quoted in the video).
http://www.unwatch.org/atf/cf/%7B6DEB65DA-BE5B-4CAE-8056-8BF0BEDF4D17%7D/DEFAMATION2008UNGA.PDF

Note that the video did note quote the entire paragraph, which, in context, sounds less 'shocking' (bold text was excluded in the video).


While my knowledge of international law is limited, especially the subtleties of the UN, nothing in the document suggests that member states will be required to pass religious defamation laws. As I understand it most GA resolutions are non-binding. I suggest that the passage of any such laws would be highly unlikely given their inconsistency with fundamental human rights in most Western democracies. Most laws that do exist along these lines prevent publications that incite religious hatred, not publications criticising religion.

Notwithstanding that, the history of religious defamation laws (typically referred to as 'blasphemy' or 'blasphemous libel') in common law states suggests that any such law will have a 'good faith' defence, and that the court will require the most 'heinous' of statements before a conviction is given. See for example Whitehouse v Lemon [1979] 2 WLR 281, which involved a poem written from the viewpoint of a Roman centurion which graphically described him having sex with Jesus after his crucifixion, and also claimed that Jesus had had sex with numerous disciples, guards, and Pontius Pilate. (Even so, I would say this decision would be highly unlikely in today's society)

Edit:
If interested, here is the voting list.
http://www.un.org/ga/third/63/votingsheets/l22rev1religions.pdf

Also remember this resolution only urges member nations...

Edit edit:
Also note:
"adequate protection against acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from defamation of religions"

- the protection is not against religious defamation. It is against the harm resulting from religious defamation. This is different to the interpretation most people seem to be giving it. Notwithstanding my own religious views I agree entirely that people should be protected from acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion that result from defamation of religions.



Nice one Kiwi Ace! Showing of the clairvoyance of a true UG Law member. Makes me proud.

Yea, its Civil Law, and most of the stuff put forward, and even agreed on by member states from the UN is only really guidelines, it hasn't really got any legal power. Its a bit of a joke really.

p.s.

If it we're as that youtube video said then I guess I'd have to change my sig. lol.
Hi I'm
Mr. JimBo R. Insane
#33
The UN is just a relic, it's nearly useless in our modern society, seriously, what have they done lately thats had a huge impact besides bicker like kids in the sandbox?
#34
Haven't watched the video, but I find it curious that the UN generally manages to avoid criticism. They get plenty of stuff wrong, and their economic development policies promoted via the WTO and other international organisations such as the IMF and WB have irresponsibly damaged the lives of hundreds of millions of people.
...Bleep Bloop...
#35
Quote by LedZeppelin9345
criticising a religion is not persecution

If you actually read my big post (especially the second edit)...

This really has nothing to do with stopping people criticising religion. It is aiming to prevent the harm (in the form of discrimination, hatred and intolerance) resulting from people criticising religion.

See the difference?
Quote by mrjimborinsane
Nice one Kiwi Ace! Showing of the clairvoyance of a true UG Law member. Makes me proud.


Thanks for reading it, judging from a number of posts following it many people haven't bothered!
Last edited by Kiwi Ace at Mar 3, 2009,
#36
Quote by Kiwi Ace
If you actually read my big post...

This really has nothing to do with stopping people criticising religion. It is aiming to prevent the harm (in the form of discrimination, hatred and intolerance) resulting from people criticising religion.

See the difference?



simply making it illegal for people to voice their opinions (which includes discriminatory ones) does not solve the problems of discrimination or intolerance.

rather, it may fuel the already active intolerance/hatred/whatever you want to call it, and perhaps evoke dormant feelings of hatred based on religion, due to the frustration and indignation caused by the suppression of free speech.

i read your post, and i think everyone talking about this on UG needs to be better informed of the actual facts.
Quote by mh.666
This man is right.


My life in all aspects is going fucking brilliantly, so I just thought I'd offer a cyncial scrap of wisdom, gloat a little, and then leave.
Last edited by LedZeppelin9345 at Mar 3, 2009,
#37
Quote by LedZeppelin9345
simply making it illegal for people to voice their opinions (which includes discriminatory ones) does not solve the problems of discrimination or intolerance.

rather, it may fuel the already active intolerance/hatred/whatever you want to call it, and perhaps evoke dormant feelings of hatred based on religion, due to the frustration and indignation caused by the suppression of free speech.

Ah, but you see it is not making it illegal to voice your opinion religion (indeed, it isn't making anything illegal). What it is asking is for countries to be more active in protecting their citizens against acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion coming from people attacking religion.

In essence it's saying 'you can criticise religion, but do not use the criticisms of a religion as a reason or excuse to engage in the above behaviour against followers of a religion'.
I agree with that entirely.

It's not suppressing speech, it's suppressing behaviour that may or may not result from speech. Although you are right, if it was suppressing speech it wouldn't get anyone anywhere.
Last edited by Kiwi Ace at Mar 3, 2009,
#38
Quote by Kiwi Ace
Ah, but you see it is not making it illegal to voice your opinion religion (indeed, it isn't making anything illegal). What it is asking is for countries to be more active in protecting their citizens against acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion coming from people attacking religion.

In essence it's saying 'you can criticise religion, but do not use the criticisms of a religion as a reason or excuse to engage in the above behaviour against followers of a religion'.
I agree with that entirely.

It's not suppressing speech, it's suppressing behaviour that may or may not result from speech. Although you are right, if it was suppressing speech it wouldn't get anyone anywhere.



yeah, okay, this sounds fine, but i wonder how they're going to enforce it. it's already illegal to intimidate and coerce lol
Quote by mh.666
This man is right.


My life in all aspects is going fucking brilliantly, so I just thought I'd offer a cyncial scrap of wisdom, gloat a little, and then leave.
#39
Quote by LedZeppelin9345
yeah, okay, this sounds fine, but i wonder how they're going to enforce it. it's already illegal to intimidate and coerce lol

They aren't, it's not a binding resolution - it's more of a 'statement of intent', if you will.

Yep, the UK repealed its blasphemy laws last year in favour of laws preventing the incitement of religious hatred. New Zealand still has a crime of 'blasphemous libel' (agh!).

Like I said earlier, it seems to me this is being blowing way out of proportion.
#40
Quote by CHIEF-CHEESE
First of all that was more of a venting comment than an argument. And I would say that not attacking the intelligence and primitiveness of religion is bad as the religions themselves.


"unintelligent" arguments.

And why would you need to attack them? It's a better demonstration of control and adherence to your own values by respecting their right to their religion, even when they do not respect anyone else's. Getting all heated up about a problem doesn't serve to do anything but add fuel to the fire.


The U.S and China would not pass or follow any kind of binding U.N delegation like this, because they are both countries that have a fundamental distinction between church and state. If the world's superpowers don't pass it, then neither will our allies. Even in the worst case scenario: What are they going to do? Declare war on their allies? Kick us out of an already useless and inefficient group like the U.N?

This is just another ploy by Islamic and religious groups to turn the world into a theocracy, and no one is going to buy it.
Quote by vintage x metal
My toilet has seen some scenes that one would describe as 'deathcore'
Page 1 of 2