UN OKs Islamic text against defamation

[Vampire]

UN OKs Islamic text against defamation

By ELIANE ENGELER, Associated Press Writer
Thu Mar 27, 11:40 PM ET

GENEVA - The top U.N. rights body on Thursday passed a resolution proposed by Islamic countries saying it is deeply concerned about the defamation of religions and urging governments to prohibit it.

The European Union said the text was one-sided because it primarily focused on Islam.

The U.N. Human Rights Council, which is dominated by Arab and other Muslim countries, adopted the resolution on a 21-10 vote over the opposition of Europe and Canada.

EU countries, including France, Germany and Britain, voted against. Previously EU diplomats had said they wanted to stop the growing worldwide trend of using religious anti-defamation laws to limit free speech.

The document, which was put forward by the Organization of the Islamic Conference, "expresses deep concern at attempts to identify Islam with terrorism, violence and human rights violations."

Although the text refers frequently to protecting all religions, the only religion specified as being attacked is Islam, to which eight paragraphs refer.

Speaking for the EU, Slovenian Ambassador Andrej Logar said the 27-nation body was committed to tolerance, nondiscrimination and freedom of religion. But instead of a one-sided approach, it would be better to engage in dialogue with mutual respect.

The resolution "urges states to take actions to prohibit the dissemination ... of racist and xenophobic ideas" and material that would incite to religious hatred. It also urges states to adopt laws that would protect against hatred and discrimination stemming from religious defamation.

The pressure to protect religions from defamation has been growing ever since a Danish magazine published caricatures of Muhammad, provoking riots across the Islamic world in 2006 in which dozens of people were killed. The publication of a different caricature in a Swedish newspaper last year again led to protests from Muslims.

no comment

[danzig]

The U.N. Human Rights Council, which is dominated by Arab and other Muslim countries

You know one really has to question the credibility of human rights council that has china, russia, pakistan, saudis sitting on it. European members are right the rest are wrong pretty much end of story. How exactly does government stop freedom of expression (even idiotic ones) just because it is "anti" something.

[Carach]

woo for the UN. spineless as per usual.

[wilting]

1) This is ridiculous and horrifying.

2) Argh. More anti-UN drivel.. The UN can only do what Member States empower it to do; the same people who criticise 'the UN' for being powerless or unable to act are those who would oppose it's empowerment (because the UN is useless ).

woo for the UN. spineless as per usual.

A majority of Member States in the Human Rights Council Pass a text with which you happen to disagree. I fail to see how this is spineless. It is Member States cooperating, which is exactly what the UN is for. Member States which didn't like it oppossed it, but were outvoted. There is no spine to be lacking, so to speak.

Nada, zip, zero its just nonsense that proves parts of the UN is completely and utterly useless.

So your criticising "the UN"* BOTH for an act originating with certain Member States, and for not having the power to implement this act with which you don't agree (which it can only get from Member States)? LOL WUT!?

*Which really doesn't have any personality in this.

and even more typical of the UN.

Again...what does have to do with the UN as an organisation, it is Member States that have done this. The UN is merely the venue. Are you suggesting the UN should tell Member States what they can and cannot do?

Usual UN dealings, one of the most useless associations ever, it really feels overimportant.

Ah the UN and it's decisions, reminds me of the appendix.

Again, I fail to see the pertinence of these comments. The 'UN feels overimportant'. Where is there UN personality here? It is Member States acting.

This is not the 'UN', this a group of Member States.

[danzig]

So your criticising "the UN"* BOTH for an act originating with certain Member States, and for not having the power to implement this act with which you don't agree (which it can only get from Member States)? LOL WUT!?

Im critical of certain aspect of the UN hence I said "part" and not the whole. Besides things like this prove that UN not being empowered to act on such things is a good thing. As I said the very fact those countries above are on this council makes it absurd that anything they decide is a good idea.

[wilting]

Very well. I just wanted to make the point that the form, function, decisions and actions of "the UN" are determind by Member States, which unfortunately is necessary in the context of comments pointing to a mythical independent UN as a scapegoat.

[CDMan477]

1) So your criticising "the UN"* BOTH for an act originating with certain Member States, and for not having the power to implement this act with which you don't agree (which it can only get from Member States)? LOL WUT!?

The fact that the majority of resolutions passed by the U.N. can never be acted upon does in fact make it quit useless does it not. What part of his statement was difficult to understand here? The body needs to be revamped either seceding to it power over the worlds sovereign nations and states(not going to happen) or abolishing it completely imo. Right now the one feature it excels at is sucking everyones tax dollars. I'll give you this, danzig was incorrect in stating only "parts" of the UN are completely and utterly useless. He was being far too gracious imo.

[wilting]

What part of his statement was difficult to understand here?

I do understand...

I just wanted to make the point that the form, function, decisions and actions of "the UN" are determind by Member States, which unfortunately is necessary in the context of comments pointing to a mythical independent UN as a scapegoat.

The body needs to be revamped either seceding to it power over the worlds sovereign nations and states(not going to happen) or abolishing it completely imo.

These things will happen 'naturally' when/if enough actors with enough influence view it to be in their interests. Abolishing it completely would be stupid, it serves as a venue for cooperation and consultation between Member States and basis for global organisations. We should not expect more of it, nor should we dismiss the importance of such a venue. Having one is better than not having one.

[Scar Face]

The U.N is an ineffective overbearing organization, it has no real hope to do anything of merit. Even more so when backwards, insignificant and meaningless nations like this actually can effect something. Which will probably not be enforced, but will become an annoying nuisance. Its time the U.N heads the way of the League of nations.

[danzig]

The fact that the majority of resolutions passed by the U.N. can never be acted upon does in fact make it quit useless does it not. What part of his statement was difficult to understand here? The body needs to be revamped either seceding to it power over the worlds sovereign nations and states(not going to happen) or abolishing it completely imo. Right now the one feature it excels at is sucking everyones tax dollars. I'll give you this, danzig was incorrect in stating only "parts" of the UN are completely and utterly useless. He was being far too gracious imo.

Well its food program is useful, sure it might be overrun by corruption, kickbacks etc but it still does provide food to people who need it

[CDMan477]

Well its food program is useful, sure it might be overrun by corruption, kickbacks etc but it still does provide food to people who need it

True, but many countries donate food and aid all over the world already. Is the cost and headache of the U.N. worth continuing a policy that pretty much does and would function without it? Look at the Tsunami's for example, I'm not saying the U.N. wasn't involved, but most nations started acting on their own before the U.N. had anything to do with it. Ha, the American people for instance didn't open up their wallets because the U.N. asked them too, thats for sure.

These things will happen 'naturally' when/if enough actors with enough influence view it to be in their interests. Abolishing it completely would be stupid, it serves as a venue for cooperation and consultation between Member States and basis for global organisations. We should not expect more of it, nor should we dismiss the importance of such a venue. Having one is better than not having one.

And they have had decades now to "view it to be in their interests." Are we closer to this dream now then in say, 1942? And, as far as a venue for cooperation and consultation, I can only say look at the last several years, and tell me that this has happened during serious issues on a consistent basis. The U.S. invades Iraq despite a lack of U.N. backing. Two third world countries know to support terrorism develop nuclear programs. The security council can't draft a legitimate answer due to certain members economic concerns. Multiple issues in Africa overlooked for the most part. The list goes on and on.

[Matty_P]

This is not the 'UN', this a group of Member States.

Thanks for the elementary lesson in UN politics!

I know it's the member states that vote on these issues, but the UN is still powerless because the global community does not work cohesively or even in a remotely unified way!

The UN is a bureaucratic waste. Even if the international community of nations that supposedly 'runs' it issues a mandate for anything, the member state[s] it effects can still be more or less unaffected.

It just doesn't work. It doesn't have the strength to because the member states refuse to give it strength, and for good reason! Who wants a crazy pan-global governing body?

Not me!

[GeneralLee]

Can the UN take any action against countries that ignore this?

[danzig]

Can the UN take any action against countries that ignore this?

Nada, zip, zero its just nonsense that proves parts of the UN is completely and utterly useless.

[Matty_P]

This is typical of Muslim nations...and even more typical of the UN.

[Kiljan Arslan]

Uh NO!

[Zadig]

Usual UN dealings, one of the most useless associations ever, it really feels overimportant.

[Denny Crane!]

God forbid they should pay attention to real problems. Lets concentrate on religious texts instead.

[PSYCHO V]

God forbid they should pay attention to real problems. Lets concentrate on religious texts instead.

Ain't that the truth. With all the suffering in the world, disease, famine, warfare, genocide, rape / abuse of women & children, drugs, etc etc ad naseum... this is what they are spending time on.

my2bob

[Athkara]

Stuff like this is only to be expected out of the UN.

<sarcasm>I mean, what if someone says something critical [read 'defaming'] of radical Islam, and some fanatic terrorist gets offended - why, he might just be driven to the point where he has to go and blow people up. Now we can't have that happen; we have to understand them. So we can't say anything 'negative', god forbid it makes them angry...</sarcasm>