NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iRHXSIoJJdXQpG3kPrRO2LWMnWTAD975RDM00

GENEVA (AP) — The U.N.'s top human rights body has approved a proposal by Muslim nations urging the passage of laws protecting religion from criticism.

Members of the Human Rights Council voted 23 in favor of a resolution Thursday to combat "defamation of religion." Eleven nations, mostly from the West, opposed the resolution and 13 countries abstained.


Another source, which paints a bit different picture:
http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE52P60220090326

U.N. body adopts resolution on religious defamation

GENEVA (Reuters) - A United Nations forum on Thursday passed a resolution condemning "defamation of religion" as a human rights violation, despite wide concerns that it could be used to justify curbs on free speech in Muslim countries.
..
..
Pakistan, speaking for the 56-nation Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), said a "delicate balance" had to be struck between freedom of expression and respect for religions.

The resolution said Muslim minorities had faced intolerance, discrimination and acts of violence since the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States, including laws and administrative procedures that stigmatize religious followers.

"Defamation of religious is a serious affront to human dignity leading to a restriction on the freedom of their adherents and incitement to religious violence," the adopted text read, adding that "Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism."

It called on states to ensure that religious places, sites, shrines and symbols are protected, to reinforce laws "to deny impunity" for those exhibiting intolerance of ethnic and religious minorities, and "to take all possible measures to promote tolerance and respect for all religions and beliefs."
..
..
The 47-member Human Rights Council has drawn criticism for reflecting mainly the interests of Islamic and African countries, which when voting together can control its agenda.

Addressing the body, Germany said on behalf of the European Union that while instances of Islamophobia, Christianophobia, anti-Semitism and other forms of religious discrimination should be taken seriously, it was "problematic to reconcile the notion of defamation (of religion) with the concept of discrimination."

"The European Union does not see the concept of defamation of religion as a valid one in a human rights discourse," it said. "The European Union believes that a broader, more balanced and thoroughly rights-based text would be best suited to address the issues underlying this draft resolution."


Luckily the verdict isn't binding and will (hopefully) never, ever fly in Europe - On the other hand, it can still be used as an excuse not only by religious states but religions themselves when fighting criticism directed towards them.

Heck, I think even the pope might have had use for such a declaration few days ago (see: Pope vs Condoms -09 (http://www.wowowow.com/politics/pope-condoms-aggravate-hivaids-241559)) :tongue:


What do you think? Should religions be an idea more stringently protected than, say, political ideas? OTOH is there a way to form a resolution that wouldn't either bully minority religions or lead into abuse through the conception of myriad "hoax" religions?


Personally I think that curbing the freedom of speech because someone might be insulted because the idea they believe in is mocked is, in my honest opinion, a fucking disgrace. :mad:

(*United Nations Human Rights Council (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Human_Rights_Council))

This is stupid. Not only is this stupid,but so are most religions, minus my own. ;)


There, I committed a human rights violation. Arrest me!

What do you think? Should religions be an idea more stringently protected than, say, political ideas?
Why do you think it isn't just a matter of time before political ideas receive similar protection? Not all political ideas, of course, just those associated with humanity and all that.

And the governments should be required to give us all lolly-pops when the bully calls us a weanie on the kindergarten playground, too.


We need to stop relying on the government to do everything for us and the government needs to stop being so happy to oblige. Whether it's hate crimes or fairness doctrine or this, all it leads to is closed minds and lack of dialogue (especially with state-controlled education). If someone's being an ass or a jerk, tell him to shut the heck up and move on with the discussion.

Leave UNHCR alone. They're not involved in what the UN HRC is doing.

First, this is a non-binding resolution with multiple caveats and passive language that merely "urges," "recongizes," etc.

Second, read the resolution itself (pdf) (http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/E/HRC/resolutions/A_HRC_RES_7_19.pdf). It does not contain particularly worrisome language and repeatedly reaffirms the right to free expression.

Third, defamation is a specific concept that requires more than mere offensiveness or theoretical insult.

Problem is, once you start declaring this as a human right, you undermine the whole concept of rights, and make it more apparent the reality people want to blissfully ignore, that natural rights is really a bunch of man made malarkey.

Maybe if their doctrines were in some way based on reason and logic instead of bollocks, and maybe if they weren't used to justify all kinds of atrocities, people wouldn't feel the need to criticise.

Problem is, once you start declaring this as a human right, you undermine the whole concept of rights, and make it more apparent the reality people want to blissfully ignore, that natural rights is really a bunch of man made malarkey.

I may agree. Explain please.

I may agree. Explain please.

What part needs explaining?

Fuck this.

What part needs explaining?

What do you mean that natural rights being "a bunch of man-made malarkey?"

Leave UNHCR alone. They're not involved in what the UN HRC is doing.
There's a length limit for the topic an' I did add a star'n a link at the bottom so... :p

Why do you think it isn't just a matter of time before political ideas receive similar protection? Not all political ideas, of course, just those associated with humanity and all that.
Ah, yes...The good ol' unity through Big Brother:ism. :D

Although I don't necessarily agree with every statement in this resolution, pray tell which statements are particularly objectionable:

1. Expresses deep concern at the negative stereotyping of all religions and manifestations of intolerance and discrimination in matters of religion or belief;

2. Also expresses deep concern at attempts to identify Islam with terrorism, violence and human rights violations and emphasizes that equating any religion with terrorism should be rejected and combated by all at all levels;

3. Further expresses deep concern at the intensification of the campaign of defamation of religions and the ethnic and religious profiling of Muslim minorities in the aftermath of the tragic events of 11 September 2001;

4. Expresses its grave concern at the recent serious instances of deliberate stereotyping of religions, their adherents and sacred persons in the media and by political parties and groups in some societies, and at the associated provocation and political exploitation;

5. Recognizes that, in the context of the fight against terrorism, defamation of religions becomes an aggravating factor that contributes to the denial of
fundamental rights and freedoms of target groups and their economic and social exclusion;

6. Expresses concern at laws or administrative measures that have been
specifically designed to control and monitor Muslim minorities, thereby stigmatizing them and legitimizing the discrimination that they experience;

7. Strongly deplores physical attacks and assaults on businesses, cultural
centres and places of worship of all religions and targeting of religious symbols;

8. Urges States to take actions to prohibit the dissemination, including
through political institutions and organizations, of racist and xenophobic ideas and material aimed at any religion or its followers that constitute incitement to racial and religious hatred, hostility or violence;

9. Also urges States to provide, within their respective legal and constitutional systems, adequate protection against acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from the defamation of any religion, to take all possible measures to promote tolerance and respect for all religions and their value systems and to complement legal systems with intellectual and moral strategies to combat religious hatred and intolerance;

10. Emphasizes that respect of religions and their protection from contempt
is an essential element conducive for the exercise by all of the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion;

11. Urges all States to ensure that all public officials, including members
of law enforcement bodies, the military, civil servants and educators, in the course of their official duties, respect all religions and beliefs and do not discriminate against persons on the grounds of their religion or belief, and that all necessary and appropriate education or training is provided;

12. Emphasizes that, as stipulated in international human rights law,
everyone has the right to freedom of expression, and that the exercise of this right carries with it special duties and responsibilities, and may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but only those provided by law and necessary for the respect of the rights or reputations of others, or for the protection of national security or of public order, or of public health or morals;

13. Reaffirms that general comment No. 15 of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, in which the Committee stipulates that the
prohibition of the dissemination of all ideas based upon racial superiority or hatred is compatible with the freedom of opinion and expression, is equally applicable to the question of incitement to religious hatred;

14. Deplores the use of printed, audio-visual and electronic media, including the Internet, and of any other means to incite acts of violence, xenophobia
or related intolerance and discrimination towards Islam or any religion;

15. Invites the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial
discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance to continue to report on all
manifestations of defamation of religions, and in particular on the serious implications of Islamophobia, on the enjoyment of all rights to the Council at its ninth session;

16. Requests the High Commissioner for Human Rights to report on the
implementation of the present resolution and to submit a study compiling relevant existing legislations and jurisprudence concerning defamation of and contempt for religions to the Council at its ninth session.

(please excuse the formatting)

Fuck this.

well, with such well reasoned and thought out responses such as this, why even have a discussion?

What do you mean that natural rights being "a bunch of man-made malarkey?"

They are principles that many people agree with, hence 'man made', but they are not some natural element of the universe, so the idea that we naturally possess rights is malarkey, what rights people have is completely subject to what the state or whatever has authority over you decides to protect.

Third, defamation is a specific concept that requires more than mere offensiveness or theoretical insult.

Suppose that I would want to say that, based on the Bible and the world around us, the Christian God is "not nice" at all - and that everybody who willingly follows Him is therefor "not nice" as well.

Would that be defamation ? Or only if I used stronger terms - even though those may more accurately reflect my actual opinion and feelings ?

They are principles that many people agree with, hence 'man made', but they are not some natural element of the universe, so the idea that we naturally possess rights is malarkey, what rights people have is completely subject to what the state or whatever has authority over you decides to protect.

Ah, I do agree then.

Suppose that I would want to say that, based on the Bible and the world around us, the Christian God is "not nice" at all - and that everybody who willingly follows Him is therefor "not nice" as well.

Would that be defamation ? Or only if I used stronger terms - even though those may more accurately reflect my actual opinion and feelings ?

Of course not.

http://www.expertlaw.com/library/personal_injury/defamation.html
http://www.chillingeffects.org/defamation/faq.cgi

Although I don't necessarily agree with every statement in this resolution, pray tell which statements are particularly objectionable:

1. Expresses deep concern at the negative stereotyping of all religions and manifestations of intolerance and discrimination in matters of religion or belief;

2. Also expresses deep concern at attempts to identify Islam with terrorism, violence and human rights violations and emphasizes that equating any religion with terrorism should be rejected and combated by all at all levels;

3. Further expresses deep concern at the intensification of the campaign of defamation of religions and the ethnic and religious profiling of Muslim minorities in the aftermath of the tragic events of 11 September 2001;

4. Expresses its grave concern at the recent serious instances of deliberate stereotyping of religions, their adherents and sacred persons in the media and by political parties and groups in some societies, and at the associated provocation and political exploitation;

5. Recognizes that, in the context of the fight against terrorism, defamation of religions becomes an aggravating factor that contributes to the denial of
fundamental rights and freedoms of target groups and their economic and social exclusion;

6. Expresses concern at laws or administrative measures that have been
specifically designed to control and monitor Muslim minorities, thereby stigmatizing them and legitimizing the discrimination that they experience;

7. Strongly deplores physical attacks and assaults on businesses, cultural
centres and places of worship of all religions and targeting of religious symbols;

8. Urges States to take actions to prohibit the dissemination, including
through political institutions and organizations, of racist and xenophobic ideas and material aimed at any religion or its followers that constitute incitement to racial and religious hatred, hostility or violence;

9. Also urges States to provide, within their respective legal and constitutional systems, adequate protection against acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from the defamation of any religion, to take all possible measures to promote tolerance and respect for all religions and their value systems and to complement legal systems with intellectual and moral strategies to combat religious hatred and intolerance;

10. Emphasizes that respect of religions and their protection from contempt
is an essential element conducive for the exercise by all of the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion;

11. Urges all States to ensure that all public officials, including members
of law enforcement bodies, the military, civil servants and educators, in the course of their official duties, respect all religions and beliefs and do not discriminate against persons on the grounds of their religion or belief, and that all necessary and appropriate education or training is provided;

12. Emphasizes that, as stipulated in international human rights law,
everyone has the right to freedom of expression, and that the exercise of this right carries with it special duties and responsibilities, and may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but only those provided by law and necessary for the respect of the rights or reputations of others, or for the protection of national security or of public order, or of public health or morals;

13. Reaffirms that general comment No. 15 of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, in which the Committee stipulates that the
prohibition of the dissemination of all ideas based upon racial superiority or hatred is compatible with the freedom of opinion and expression, is equally applicable to the question of incitement to religious hatred;

14. Deplores the use of printed, audio-visual and electronic media, including the Internet, and of any other means to incite acts of violence, xenophobia
or related intolerance and discrimination towards Islam or any religion;

15. Invites the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial
discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance to continue to report on all
manifestations of defamation of religions, and in particular on the serious implications of Islamophobia, on the enjoyment of all rights to the Council at its ninth session;

16. Requests the High Commissioner for Human Rights to report on the
implementation of the present resolution and to submit a study compiling relevant existing legislations and jurisprudence concerning defamation of and contempt for religions to the Council at its ninth session.

(please excuse the formatting)

Maybe it's just the wording, but I don't see it clearly defined what is specifically a human rights violation, rather than merely something they are urging nations to stop.

Of course not.

http://www.expertlaw.com/library/personal_injury/defamation.html
http://www.chillingeffects.org/defamation/faq.cgi

What if someone were to say, for instance, that "the Qur'an justifies terrorism"?

The things I don't like is as follows:


Trying to create human rights for collective groupings of people and organisations. I agree with Canada: Individuals have rights, not religions.
Emphasizing Islam and Islamophobia. It makes it seem like it's islamic states just looking out for themselves (which it probably is.) They should have looked in a wider historical context if they were serious, and they should have referenced the Holocaust as an example.


That said, one can only hope that this means that places like Saudi Arabia, China and Quatar cleans up their acts at home, and fights religious intolerance and discrimination in their home countries, where one can argue that freedom of religion suffers more than in the west. So I'm happy to see this declaration used for what it's worth against the authoritarian regimes to strengthen individual rights.

And on a side note, it's interesting to see that a majority have voted against or abstained from voting on this resolution.

There's a length limit for the topic an' I did add a star'n a link at the bottom so... :p

As long as we're clear that there's a difference ;)

Of course not.

What if the other party considers my claims to be false? Which of course they do - since they think of God as good and noble.

The human rights council is a joke, and it has been for a decade at least.

What if the other party considers my claims to be false? Which of course they do - since they think of God as good and noble.

Yes, indeed...

Aren't religions themselves defamatory to other religions?


:eek2:

edit:
As long as we're clear that there's a difference ;)
Bah, UN this, UN that...Who can be arsed to keep track of them all?

They should hold UN Acronym Convention (UNAC :P) to eliminate one letter swap errors. ;)

Yes, indeed...

Aren't religions themselves defamatory to other religions?


:eek2:

I hear Islam has some wonderful things to say about Judaism.

The human rights council is a joke, and it has been for a decade at least.

It's been around since 2006. It's just an advisory body.

Maybe people should actually read the wording (like TCT provided):
Expresses deep concern
Strongly deplores
Urges
Emphasizes
Where is the 'binding' power in this? It's moral, not legal.

Yes, indeed...

Aren't religions themselves defamatory to other religions?


:eek2:

edit:

Bah, UN this, UN that...Who can be arsed to keep track of them all?

They should hold UN Acronym Convention (UNAC :P) to eliminate one letter swap errors. ;)

Only if you use the word 'defamatory' to mean more than it actually does.

Although I don't necessarily agree with every statement in this resolution, pray tell which statements are particularly objectionable:

1. Expresses deep concern at the negative stereotyping of all religions and manifestations of intolerance and discrimination in matters of religion or belief;

Um, there are some religious beliefs that should be discriminated against. If we're sacrificing children to Moloch, that should surely be stamped out, yes? So merely because a practice is 'religious' or 'spiritual' does not mean that it is merely a matter of opinion or that it is free from discrimination of right and wrong, good and evil, commendable and deplorable.

2. Also expresses deep concern at attempts to identify Islam with terrorism, violence and human rights violations and emphasizes that equating any religion with terrorism should be rejected and combated by all at all levels;

3. Further expresses deep concern at the intensification of the campaign of defamation of religions and the ethnic and religious profiling of Muslim minorities in the aftermath of the tragic events of 11 September 2001;

All the September 11 attackers were Muslim (or at least of Muslim influence and ideas). Does that mean that Muslims are terrorists? No, of course not, but there seems to be many more Muslims willing to run out and kill the infidel than Jews, Christians, Buddhists or anyone else in our world today.

Which is an observation, not an argument.

4. Expresses its grave concern at the recent serious instances of deliberate stereotyping of religions, their adherents and sacred persons in the media and by political parties and groups in some societies, and at the associated provocation and political exploitation;

Okay

5. Recognizes that, in the context of the fight against terrorism, defamation of religions becomes an aggravating factor that contributes to the denial of fundamental rights and freedoms of target groups and their economic and social exclusion;

Well, assuming the idea of rights to be correct, there's really nothing wrong here with the exception that sometimes rights must be withheld from some people. Naturally this can be done in a wrong fashion (as with the Japanese-Americans in WW2) or it can be done rightly (we truly think you are guilty of being a terrorist and are so detaining you). Just because someone screams "My religion!" does not mean that it's actually because of his religion that he is experiencing deprivation from his rights.

6. Expresses concern at laws or administrative measures that have been specifically designed to control and monitor Muslim minorities, thereby stigmatizing them and legitimizing the discrimination that they experience;

And any high-risk group should be watched closely. If it seemed more left-handed people were terrorists, we'd watch them more closely for questionable activity, wouldn't we? And rightly so, I think.

7. Strongly deplores physical attacks and assaults on businesses, cultural centres and places of worship of all religions and targeting of religious symbols;

Good.

8. Urges States to take actions to prohibit the dissemination, including through political institutions and organizations, of racist and xenophobic ideas and material aimed at any religion or its followers that constitute incitement to racial and religious hatred, hostility or violence;

Why? This is nothing but an attempt to control ideas. Fight against bad and evil ideas. If you push them under, all you do is create resentment from the opposition and allure to it. And those who are not part of the opposition are usually nothing more than ignorant drones of thought.

9. Also urges States to provide, within their respective legal and constitutional systems, adequate protection against acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from the defamation of any religion, to take all possible measures to promote tolerance and respect for all religions and their value systems and to complement legal systems with intellectual and moral strategies to combat religious hatred and intolerance;

Hate crimes are nonsense. If you kill someone, you get (or should get) executed. Regardless of whether you killed because you hated the person or not. And what if I hated him because he slept with my wife? Is that more or less worthy of a hate crime label than if I had hated him because he's Muslim? Hate crimes are a nonsense category that serves no purpose but to punish the 'majority' and make the 'minority' feel good, which is no basis for law.

10. Emphasizes that respect of religions and their protection from contempt is an essential element conducive for the exercise by all of the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion;

Some religions deserve contempt. Again, we shouldn't shy from calling the sacrifice of children evil, whether or not it's a religious belief. And not all things to be called evil are so extreme as child-sacrifice.

11. Urges all States to ensure that all public officials, including members of law enforcement bodies, the military, civil servants and educators, in the course of their official duties, respect all religions and beliefs and do not discriminate against persons on the grounds of their religion or belief, and that all necessary and appropriate education or training is provided;

Why? I don't want Osama bin Laden in my Cabinet, even if he didn't orchestrate 9/11 and other terrorist attacks. Neither do I want Tom Cruise. Or Pat Robertson. Their religious beliefs affect their actions and their beliefs in other domains. Religion (despite what secularist minds may say) cannot be separated from other spheres.

12. Emphasizes that, as stipulated in international human rights law,
everyone has the right to freedom of expression, and that the exercise of this right carries with it special duties and responsibilities, and may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but only those provided by law and necessary for the respect of the rights or reputations of others, or for the protection of national security or of public order, or of public health or morals;

Don't morals come from religion? Yes, though not exclusively. So by requiring speech to adhere to public morals, you're discriminating against religious systems that deny those morals.

13. Reaffirms that general comment No. 15 of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, in which the Committee stipulates that the
prohibition of the dissemination of all ideas based upon racial superiority or hatred is compatible with the freedom of opinion and expression, is equally applicable to the question of incitement to religious hatred;

Which is utter nonsense.

14. Deplores the use of printed, audio-visual and electronic media, including the Internet, and of any other means to incite acts of violence, xenophobia or related intolerance and discrimination towards Islam or any religion;

Okay, they're allowed to deplore it and I'm glad they do.

15. Invites the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance to continue to report on all manifestations of defamation of religions, and in particular on the serious implications of Islamophobia, on the enjoyment of all rights to the Council at its ninth session;

That's their choice.

16. Requests the High Commissioner for Human Rights to report on the implementation of the present resolution and to submit a study compiling relevant existing legislations and jurisprudence concerning defamation of and contempt for religions to the Council at its ninth session.

So they're going to police us now? Hasn't the UN done enough limiting of sovereignty?

Yes, indeed...

Aren't religions themselves defamatory to other religions?

Of course.
However, the main point is that we are talking about beliefs here. We will be unable to establish objectively if some claims are true or false.

Sure "all muslims are terrorists" is easily shown to be false, defamatory and so on. But a statement like "the Qu'ran can incite hatred and violence" or "the actions of the Christian God are the actions of a vile creature" is less easy to classify as "true" or "false"- yet will be considered hurtful and/or untrue by many.

Of course.
However, the main point is that we are talking about beliefs here. We will be unable to establish objectively if some claims are true or false.

Sure "all muslims are terrorists" is easily shown to be false, defamatory and so on. But a statement like "the Qu'ran can incite hatred and violence" or "the actions of the Christian God are the actions of a vile creature" is less easy to classify as "true" or "false"- yet will be considered hurtful and/or untrue by many.

Essentially, I don't want to end up with the UN mandating on the 'correct' interpretation of these religious texts.

Only if you use the word 'defamatory' to mean more than it actually does.
Most religions inherently declare that they are the Only Correct Religion hence other religions have to be - by extension - false, incorrect, blasphemous, worthless, dangerous, misleading, etc.. (the actual terms applicable depend on the wording & interpretation of the Holy Book/Word/Doctrine/Noodly Appendage/Spirit/Stone Circle/whatnot)


My point is that a follower of Religion A claiming that "Based on [Religion A]'s teachings religion B is dangerous, blasphemous & misleading religion which will cause its followers to go into a Not-A-Nice-Place(tm)" is indeed defamation from the point of view of the Religion B - which naturally maintains that Religion B will lead into a Good Place(tm) - while being in accordance to the doctrines of Religion A.

In order to apply the previous paragraph to real world: Replace Religion A & Religion B with [almost] any major religion.

This is stupid. Not only is this stupid,but so are most religions, minus my own. ;)


There, I committed a human rights violation. Arrest me!

*reports Yenke-Bin to the UN*
oooohhh... you're in trouble now... just you wait... they'll bring out their big guns... you'll be soo sorry now...

:D

http://image18.webshots.com/18/3/69/5/217636905EYFhTL_ph.jpg

http://image18.webshots.com/18/3/69/5/217636905EYFhTL_ph.jpg

Link bad.

As for the resolution... no. Just no.

IMHO, these laws will contribute to the stifling of religious freedom in many countries, rather than an increase of it. Countries who are more religiously inclined in their governments for instance, could potentially use this legislation to justify laws in their own government about apostasy (rejection of the state religion is defamation of that religion), speaking about other religions in general (as many posters have pointed out, the Abrahamic religions in particular have plenty of nasty things to say about other religions), or accessing religious texts or other spiritual material.

And while the resolution is not binding, and there is a specific definition of defamation that the makers had in mind, it is ludicrous to trust that certain nations will not use this as justification for a range of new and dangerous restrictions on free speech and belief.

Why do you think it isn't just a matter of time before political ideas receive similar protection? Not all political ideas, of course, just those associated with humanity and all that.

I hereby declare Marxism as religion.

Tenet #1: Marxism is true and just.
Tenet #2: Karl Marx is the only Marx and Risottia is His prophet.
Tenet #3: Free market and right-wing ideas are evil and offensive.
Tenet #4: Propagating or upholding any other religion than Marxism, or political ideas conflicting with Marxism and Risottia's writings, is a Kapital sin.

Done. Anyone who has a political idea different from mine is offending my religion. Stop the hate-speech! Arrest him!

:rolleyes:

I hereby declare Marxism as religion.

Tenet #1: Marxism is true and just.
Tenet #2: Karl Marx is the only Marx and Risottia is His prophet.
Tenet #3: Free market and right-wing ideas are evil and offensive.
Tenet #4: Propagating or upholding any other religion than Marxism, or political ideas conflicting with Marxism and Risottia's writings, is a Kapital sin.

Done. Anyone who has a political idea different from mine is offending my religion. Stop the hate-speech! Arrest him!

:rolleyes:

I hereby declare that strawman to have been incinerated!

You have to wonder. If this resolution had come out of Christian countries would people be scare mongering and whining about it? Or are they just upset that now Mr. Wilder's might start getting called out for being the Islamophobe that he is?

Dont worry, I know the answer.
So they're going to police us now? Hasn't the UN done enough limiting of sovereignty?
This'll be good for lulz. Tell me, when was the last time the UN limited anyone's 'sovereignty'?

Link bad.

As for the resolution... no. Just no.

http://www.beachcomberbuddha.co.uk/Laughing%20Buddha%20Mask.jpg

?

I hereby declare Marxism as religion.

Tenet #1: Marxism is true and just.
Tenet #2: Karl Marx is the only Marx and Risottia is His prophet.
Tenet #3: Free market and right-wing ideas are evil and offensive.
Tenet #4: Propagating or upholding any other religion than Marxism, or political ideas conflicting with Marxism and Risottia's writings, is a Kapital sin.

Done. Anyone who has a political idea different from mine is offending my religion. Stop the hate-speech! Arrest him!

:rolleyes:

I like that you spelled "kapital" with a k:D

As for the resolution... no. Just no.

Like I said, I wonder if you would say the same thing if Israel had been the one to push this through.


Not that the resolution says what the scaremongering OP says it does.

Like I said, I wonder if you would say the same thing if Israel had been the one to push this through.


Not that the resolution says what the scaremongering OP says it does.

I support Israel and I certainly would.

You have to wonder.

I don't. From everything said in this conversation, it's less about Islam and more about the idea of religion being off the table for criticism. Again, that may be a strawman that the resolution never intends, but that is the impression given to many here. I have seen very little from any poster to suggest that this is a discussion of Islamophobia.

I don't. From everything said in this conversation, it's less about Islam and more about the idea of religion being off the table for criticism. Again, that may be a strawman that the resolution never intends, but that is the impression given to many here. I have seen very little from any poster to suggest that this is a discussion of Islamophobia.

Considering the nature if NSG and some of the people who have made comments...

Besides, it doesnt say religion is off the table for critisim, it says nothing of the sort.

10. Emphasizes that respect of religions and their protection from contempt
is an essential element conducive for the exercise by all of the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion;

The rest of the resolution seems reasonable, but am I the only one who is bothered by this bit?

Considering the nature if NSG and some of the people who have made comments...

Besides, it doesnt say religion is off the table for critisim, it says nothing of the sort.

Of course it doesn't say that. But many people here think it does. Which is a totally different issue.

Of course it doesn't say that. But many people here think it does. Which is a totally different issue.

Make that: Across the world.

http://www.wan-press.org/article18082.html

The World Association of Newspapers and World Editors Forum have condemned a resolution approved by the United Nations Human Rights Council on “defamation of religion,” calling the measure an attack on the basic human right of freedom of expression.

Of course it doesn't say that. But many people here think it does. Which is a totally different issue.
Because UN is inherently politically correct. It never says things straight, the language is always extremely soft.

Said people read what it means.

That nations overrun by Islam, the world's greatest persecutor of minority religions, the political ideology that officially makes non-Moslems second-class citizens, the creed whose adherents actively persecute Christians, Jews and other non-infidels, cry their little eyes out over alleged insults to their fellow infidels since 9/11, and demand unprecedented legal protection for them, is a new low in hypocrisy and a belly laugh.

:upyours: I look forward to personally violating this resolution, early and often.

I am also waiting with bated breath for Barack Hussein Obama to chime in on this issue.

Because UN is inherently politically correct. It never says things straight, the language is always extremely soft.

Said people read what it means.

Or maybe you're just projecting.

That nations overrun by Islam, the world's greatest persecutor of minority religions, the political ideology that officially makes non-Moslems second-class citizens, the creed whose adherents actively persecute Christians, Jews and other non-infidels, cry their little eyes out over alleged insults to their fellow infidels since 9/11, and demand unprecedented legal protection for them, is a new low in hypocrisy and a belly laugh.

:upyours: I look forward to personally violating this resolution, early and often.

I am also waiting with bated breath for Barack Hussein Obama to chime in on this issue.

You have to wonder. If this resolution had come out of Christian countries would people be scare mongering and whining about it? Or are they just upset that now Mr. Wilder's might start getting called out for being the Islamophobe that he is?

Dont worry, I know the answer.


*drums fingers*

That nations overrun by Islam, the world's greatest persecutor of minority religions, the political ideology that officially makes non-Moslems second-class citizens, the creed whose adherents actively persecute Christians, Jews and other non-infidels, cry their little eyes out over alleged insults to their fellow infidels since 9/11, and demand unprecedented legal protection for them, is a new low in hypocrisy and a belly laugh.

:upyours: I look forward to personally violating this resolution, early and often.

I am also waiting with bated breath for Barack Hussein Obama to chime in on this issue.

Oh good Lord in Heaven, I think the decimal in my IQ just jumped over the to the left simply by reading this.

Like I said, I wonder if you would say the same thing if Israel had been the one to push this through.


Not that the resolution says what the scaremongering OP says it does.

Yes. Absolutely yes.

I may not agree with what you say, but I will kill to protect your right to say it.

This'll be good for lulz. Tell me, when was the last time the UN limited anyone's 'sovereignty'?

The fact that countries are expected to okay actions with the UN is a limitation of sovereignty. The US's standing in the world decreased greatly after ignoring the UN and invading Iraq. Whether that invasion was right or not, the fact that the UN would or should have the power to dictate the foreign policy of its members or that a member's foreign policy should have to agree with UN policy is a breach of national sovereignty.

The fact that countries are expected to okay actions with the UN is a limitation of sovereignty. The US's standing in the world decreased greatly after ignoring the UN and invading Iraq. Whether that invasion was right or not, the fact that the UN would or should have the power to dictate the foreign policy of its members or that a member's foreign policy should have to agree with UN policy is a breach of national sovereignty.

The UN didnt dictate anything. It just said, "Hey, we're not helping, maybe you shouldnt bother with it."

That has nothing to do with sovereignty. The fact that the US went in is evident of the US's sovereignty, and it losing standing its a direct consequence of its own exercise of its sovereignty. The UN didnt say "Youre all required to hate the US now". Those countries were pissed all on their own.

I dont know what world you live in where sovereignty = not having consequences to your actions, but its not reality.

So, I repeat the question. When has the UN ever limited a state's sovereignty?

Fuck this.

I concur...

/thread

This is stupid. Not only is this stupid,but so are most religions, minus my own. ;)


There, I committed a human rights violation. Arrest me!

*beats with nightsticks before hauling you away in a black unmarked car to a secret prison.*

The UN didnt dictate anything. It just said, "Hey, we're not helping, maybe you shouldnt bother with it."

That has nothing to do with sovereignty. The fact that the US went in is evident of the US's sovereignty, and it losing standing its a direct consequence of its own exercise of its sovereignty. The UN didnt say "Youre all required to hate the US now". Those countries were pissed all on their own.

I dont know what world you live in where sovereignty = not having consequences to your actions, but its not reality.

So, I repeat the question. When has the UN ever limited a state's sovereignty?

Okay, yes, you are correct, it has not succeeded in limiting sovereignty.

Whether it's hate crimes or fairness doctrine or this, all it leads to is closed minds and lack of dialogue (especially with state-controlled education). If someone's being an ass or a jerk, tell him to shut the heck up and move on with the discussion.

I find it funny that you're saying 'hate crimes' and 'fairness' doctrine lead to closed minds and lack of dialogue, when just the discussions about both fairness doctrine and hate crimes are causing dialogue.

I find it similarly amusing that you think telling people to shut the heck up would somehow lead to dialogue.

If I were you, I'd go and read things like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard

...to understand why forcing the issue on things like hate-crime are essential, and why the closed minds were the PRECURSORS of hate-crime legislation concepts, not a result of them. (And why 'telling them to shut the heck up' is a nonsensical ideal).


As for Fairness Doctrine, I don't see any likelihood of it passing any time soon, but there's no really GOOD reason why it shouldn't - except that those who govern through hate and fear don't want their agenda challenged with reason and facts. Blocking Fairness Doctrine is actually deliberately fostering both closed minds AND the death of dialogue.

Although I don't necessarily agree with every statement in this resolution, pray tell which statements are particularly objectionable:

1. Expresses deep concern at the negative stereotyping of all religions and manifestations of intolerance and discrimination in matters of religion or belief;

2. Also expresses deep concern at attempts to identify Islam with terrorism, violence and human rights violations and emphasizes that equating any religion with terrorism should be rejected and combated by all at all levels;

3. Further expresses deep concern at the intensification of the campaign of defamation of religions and the ethnic and religious profiling of Muslim minorities in the aftermath of the tragic events of 11 September 2001;

4. Expresses its grave concern at the recent serious instances of deliberate stereotyping of religions, their adherents and sacred persons in the media and by political parties and groups in some societies, and at the associated provocation and political exploitation;

5. Recognizes that, in the context of the fight against terrorism, defamation of religions becomes an aggravating factor that contributes to the denial of
fundamental rights and freedoms of target groups and their economic and social exclusion;

6. Expresses concern at laws or administrative measures that have been
specifically designed to control and monitor Muslim minorities, thereby stigmatizing them and legitimizing the discrimination that they experience;

7. Strongly deplores physical attacks and assaults on businesses, cultural
centres and places of worship of all religions and targeting of religious symbols;

8. Urges States to take actions to prohibit the dissemination, including
through political institutions and organizations, of racist and xenophobic ideas and material aimed at any religion or its followers that constitute incitement to racial and religious hatred, hostility or violence;

9. Also urges States to provide, within their respective legal and constitutional systems, adequate protection against acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from the defamation of any religion, to take all possible measures to promote tolerance and respect for all religions and their value systems and to complement legal systems with intellectual and moral strategies to combat religious hatred and intolerance;

10. Emphasizes that respect of religions and their protection from contempt
is an essential element conducive for the exercise by all of the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion;

11. Urges all States to ensure that all public officials, including members
of law enforcement bodies, the military, civil servants and educators, in the course of their official duties, respect all religions and beliefs and do not discriminate against persons on the grounds of their religion or belief, and that all necessary and appropriate education or training is provided;

12. Emphasizes that, as stipulated in international human rights law,
everyone has the right to freedom of expression, and that the exercise of this right carries with it special duties and responsibilities, and may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but only those provided by law and necessary for the respect of the rights or reputations of others, or for the protection of national security or of public order, or of public health or morals;

13. Reaffirms that general comment No. 15 of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, in which the Committee stipulates that the
prohibition of the dissemination of all ideas based upon racial superiority or hatred is compatible with the freedom of opinion and expression, is equally applicable to the question of incitement to religious hatred;

14. Deplores the use of printed, audio-visual and electronic media, including the Internet, and of any other means to incite acts of violence, xenophobia
or related intolerance and discrimination towards Islam or any religion;

15. Invites the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial
discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance to continue to report on all
manifestations of defamation of religions, and in particular on the serious implications of Islamophobia, on the enjoyment of all rights to the Council at its ninth session;

16. Requests the High Commissioner for Human Rights to report on the
implementation of the present resolution and to submit a study compiling relevant existing legislations and jurisprudence concerning defamation of and contempt for religions to the Council at its ninth session.

(please excuse the formatting)

I take exception to the third, fourth, sixth, seventh and fourteenth points of this statement. In order:

"3. Further expresses deep concern at the intensification of the campaign of defamation of religions and the ethnic and religious profiling of Muslim minorities in the aftermath of the tragic events of 11 September 2001"

All of the 9/11 Hijackers were Muslims, and they used the Qu'ran (rightly or wrongly - I'm not interested in arguing that point here) to justify their actions. Further, extremists are not just a tiny minority - they are in charge of several Islamic nations, including key US allies-of-convenience, such as Saudi Arabia.

If the numbers indicate that members of Group X are more inclined to acts that threaten your citizens, you (as the security authorities) are derelict in your duties if you do not keep this in mind and act accordingly. The first duty of any government is the defence of its own people, not appeasement of a group of foreigners.

"4. Expresses its grave concern at the recent serious instances of deliberate stereotyping of religions, their adherents and sacred persons in the media and by political parties and groups in some societies, and at the associated provocation and political exploitation."

Sorry, Muslims. If Jesus is subject to satire, then so is Mohammed.

It's called "freedom of speech". And since I know that you don't understand what that means - not one Islamic country has any of it, after all - I will graciously explain. Freedom of speech is what happens when people are allowed to express their opinions in any fashion they see fit. And if you are offended at what they say (provided it does not slander you personally), then you have the perfect right to express your disapproval. You have *no* right to attempt to silence them.

"6. Expresses concern at laws or administrative measures that have been
specifically designed to control and monitor Muslim minorities, thereby stigmatizing them and legitimizing the discrimination that they experience."

I find this particularly offensive for one simple reason - even today, Muslims in the Western world are far better treated than non-Muslims in any Islamic country that you care to name.

Not *one* Islamic country both enshrines and practices freedom of religion. Even in supposedly tolerant Malaysia and Indonesia, shariah law is the basis of legislation, and the Chinese(Buddhist, for the most part) and Christian minorities are routinely ignored by the police when they complain of ill-treatment by Muslims.

Further, can the Muslims name *one* ordinance, in any Western country, that is "specifically designed to control and monitor Muslim minorities"? Of course not! No such ordinance, law or executive order exists. They are lying outright when they claim that such do.

"7. Strongly deplores physical attacks and assaults on businesses, cultural
centres and places of worship of all religions and targeting of religious symbols."

When the Islamic world allows its non-Muslim minorities to display the cross, the Star of David, etc. etc. in public (currently a death-penalty offence in Saudi Arabia, to name just one), then they will have some right to open their bigoted mouths on this topic. In the meantime, for them to open up in this field only displays their stunning hypocrisy for all the world to see.

"14. Deplores the use of printed, audio-visual and electronic media, including the Internet, and of any other means to incite acts of violence, xenophobia or related intolerance and discrimination towards Islam or any religion."

When Islamic groups have their little "recruiting" websites taken down, when official Saudi textbooks no longer call for the destruction of Israel and a second Holocaust, when mosques in the West no longer preach hatred and intolerance to their young folk in our lands, then they can criticise the West for allowing some form of criticism of their religion to stand.

In the meantime, they need to STFU.

In summary - each of the things they accuse the West of doing, they themselves do in spades to their own minority populations. For them to play the 'victim' card is a stunning display of hypocrisy of the highest order. For the world media to let them get away with it shows just how far they have gone down the road to dhimmitude.

Please take a look at my sig. The Hirsi Ali quote is particularly apt, I think, and summarises my feelings on the topic.

"
Sorry, Muslims. If Jesus is subject to satire, then so is Mohammed.

Satire is one thing. Hate speech is another. What tools like Wilder do is not satire. Its inciting riots.

It's called "freedom of speech". And since I know that you don't understand what that means - not one Islamic country has any of it, after all -

I like how you make such a flat out ignorant and totally wrong statement here and then move on to be extremelly condescending.

I find this particularly offensive for one simple reason - even today, Muslims in the Western world are far better treated than non-Muslims in any Islamic country that you care to name...*snip*...and the Chinese(Buddhist, for the most part) and Christian minorities are routinely ignored by the police when they complain of ill-treatment by Muslims.

You have a source for this? I call bullshit.

Further, can the Muslims name *one* ordinance, in any Western country, that is "specifically designed to control and monitor Muslim minorities"? Of course not! No such ordinance, law or executive order exists. They are lying outright when they claim that such do.

Banning the wearing of the hijab.

When the Islamic world allows its non-Muslim minorities to display the cross, the Star of David, etc. etc. in public (currently a death-penalty offence in Saudi Arabia, to name just one),

Source. And a source that more then Saudi Arabia do it, but I want proof that they have that law as well.

When Islamic groups have their little "recruiting" websites taken down, when official Saudi textbooks no longer call for the destruction of Israel and a second Holocaust, when mosques in the West no longer preach hatred and intolerance to their young folk in our lands, then they can criticise the West for allowing some form of criticism of their religion to stand.

This is standard Islamophobe scaremongering.

In the meantime, they need to STFU.

In summary - each of the things they accuse the West of doing, they themselves do in spades to their own minority populations. For them to play the 'victim' card is a stunning display of hypocrisy of the highest order. For the world media to let them get away with it shows just how far they have done down the road to dhimmitude.

For you to be so wrong yet so arrogant is kind of funny to be honest.

Oh, and:
You have to wonder. If this resolution had come out of Christian countries would people be scare mongering and whining about it? Or are they just upset that now Mr. Wilder's might start getting called out for being the Islamophobe that he is?

Dont worry, I know the answer.

*Drums fingers*

Please take a look at my sig. The Hirsi Ali quote is particularly apt, I think, and summarises my feelings on the topic.

I wonder if you feel the same way about Christians who call for everyone to embrace Jesus. Or is it just wrong when those dirty a-rahbs do it?

Satire is one thing. Hate speech is another. What tools like Wilder do is not satire. Its inciting riots.

I find it ironic that Wilder manages only to create hate and not satire, while Wilde was perhaps satire's undisputed king.

You have a source for this? I call bullshit.

In Malaysia, at least, religious discrimination (although it's organised along racial lines) is essentially official policy. I don't know about the police's attitudes to specific incidents of discrimination specifically, but given that they're not of superb quality (lol corruption) I find this quite plausible.

Anyway. Given that (unfortunately) the UNHCR has failed to achieve anything meaningful in the past scaremongering over this is pointless. Although the statements expressed are (mostly) reasonable it's awfully Islam-centric; Islam is the only religion specifically mentioned. As has been mentioned before in the thread it's really just Pakistan and its buddies looking out for themselves, and I can't really take it seriously.

To suggest that NSG (at least) is only complaining because it's Muslims is extremely short-sighted though. For every New Mitanni there are plenty of others who would think this nonsensical regardless of its backing.

On the other hand I'm not sure what the reasoning behind this being used as a tool to crack down on dissent in Islamic countries would be, given that no country really gives a shit about the UN's views on human rights regardless...

I still have major problems with point 10 of the resolution. Is it suggesting that being contemptuous of religion means I am infringing on the rights of others to freedom of thought?

I still have major problems with point 10 of the resolution. Is it suggesting that being contemptuous of religion means I am infringing on the rights of others to freedom of thought?
It certainly seems that way:

"Emphasizes that respect of religions and their protection from contempt is an essential element conducive for the exercise by all of the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion"

'Protection from contempt' is a vague term which I imagine could cover anything from threatening verbal abuse to satirical jokes, even theological/philosophical argumentation.

Dodgy.

But as you said, this isn't binding or enforceable. Still; two thumbs down.


You have to wonder. If this resolution had come out of Christian countries would people be scare mongering and whining about it? Or are they just upset that now Mr. Wilder's might start getting called out for being the Islamophobe that he is?
Of course folk would be complaining; just as they did in the UK when the government proposed a rather rigid first draft of the Racial and Religious Hatred Act 2006 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Hatred_Bill).

I am also waiting with bated breath for Barack Hussein Obama to chime in on this issue.

Any reason why you listed his whole name and italicized his first and middle name?

I hereby declare that strawman to have been incinerated!

Your declaration has no effect because you aren't a believer of the true religion. You are a Marxless heathen. Stop hate-speech against my religion!

;)

I like that you spelled "kapital" with a k:D

And a kapital "K" in "Kapital" to boot! :D

Satire is one thing. Hate speech is another. What tools like Wilder do is not satire. Its inciting riots.



I like how you make such a flat out ignorant and totally wrong statement here and then move on to be extremelly condescending.



You have a source for this? I call bullshit.



Banning the wearing of the hijab.



Source. And a source that more then Saudi Arabia do it, but I want proof that they have that law as well.



This is standard Islamophobe scaremongering.



For you to be so wrong yet so arrogant is kind of funny to be honest.

Oh, and:


*Drums fingers*



I wonder if you feel the same way about Christians who call for everyone to embrace Jesus. Or is it just wrong when those dirty a-rahbs do it?

1. Prove that Wilder incites riots and/or attacks on Muslims. PROOF, PLEASE. Not just "X says he does", but somewhere where he, himself, actually did so - actually called on people to riot against muslims or harm Muslims. Also, please see the conclusion for where you went wrong on this one.

2. re: Freedom of Speech. You're asking me to prove a negative. Allow me to advance a much easier proposition. If there is an Islamic country that permits freedom of speech, name it. Just name it, and if you're right, I'll concede that Islam is not *inherently* antithetical to FoS.

3. Oh, I have a source for you - the example I chose included Indonesia, where this (http://www.hrw.org/legacy/englishwr2k8/docs/2008/01/31/indone17606.htm), which states "Religious extremists forcibly closed more places of worship of religious minorities, with little response from local authorities". Or perhaps this press release (http://freecopts.net/english/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=912&Itemid=9) from Egypt, which states clearly: "This militant attack took place in broad daylight under the sight and 'protection' of the security officers."

4. And Turkey also banned the hijab altogether many years ago, not just in universities. This now means, by your logic, that Turkey discriminates against Muslims? Hogwash.

5. Oh, you shouldn't have gone here. It will be the death of your argument.

i) Saudi Arabian religious laws: Freedom of Religion in Saudi Arabia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion_in_Saudi_Arabia). US State Department of Freedom of Religion in Saudi Arabia. (http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/2007/90220.htm) Freedom House on Saudi Arabian religious laws. (http://web.archive.org/web/20060221180044/www.freedomhouse.org/religion/country/Saudi+Arabia/religious+apartheid+in+sa.htm)

ii) Iranian Religious Freedom (http://www.hrw.org/legacy/englishwr2k8/docs/2008/01/31/iran17597.htm), Egyptian religious freedoms - or lack thereof (http://www.hrw.org/legacy/englishwr2k8/docs/2008/01/31/egypt17595.htm), or in Eritrea (http://www.amnesty.org/en/region/eritrea/report-2008).

Note: Most of the links I provided only touch on religious freedoms, and their reports about the lack of freedom of speech only reinforce my other points.

6. Nice ad-hominem attack: When you can't disprove my point, you resort to name-calling.

7. And your opinion, then, is that Islamic countries are somehow (one and all) not instigators of routine human rights abuses? Well, I've shot that one down - I think that the many sources I've provided prove that Islamic countries are among the worst offenders in this regard, regularly committing abuses that to Western eyes seem a relic of Mediaeval times, banished with the French Revolution.

Which, in turn, establishes my point about their hypocrisy in calling for a new standard on "human rights" to be observed.

P.S. Yes, I would feel the same way, or perhaps even more strongly, in the situation that you hypothesise. After all, the New Testament does not condone forced conversion. The Qu'ran does. Therefore, the Christian who calls for forced conversion goes against Christ's word - the Imam who does likewise is simply following Mohammed's example. (Sources, to save you the time of petty disputes over my assertions regarding the Qu'ran: Sura 9:29 (http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/quran/009.qmt.html#009.029), Hadith 1:33 (http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/muslim/001.smt.html#001.0033), Hadith 2:24 (http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/bukhari/002.sbt.html#001.002.024), among many (http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/bukhari/008.sbt.html#001.008.387) other (http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/hadith/muslim/019.smt.html#019.4294) examples (http://www.usc.edu/schools/college/crcc/engagement/resources/texts/muslim/quran/009.qmt.html#009.005).

However, we are not discussing bad behaviour by Christians. We are discussing bad behaviour by Muslims, and "Two wrongs make a right (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_wrongs_make_a_right)" is a logical fallacy, which your diversion indulges in by insinuating that bad Christian behaviour justifies bad Islamic behaviour. It doesn't, but this thread is not about bad Christian behaviour. It is about bad Islamic behaviour, insofar as it's about anyone's bad behaviour at all.

You also indulged in the following logical fallacies:

1. Guilt by association, when you associated my position with Wilders', when Wilders is a controversial figure, in order to discredit my argument. Wilders does not satirise Islam, he criticises it. The Dutch Cartoon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jyllands-Posten_Muhammad_cartoons_controversy), on the other hand, satirised Islam (specifically, Mohammed), and drew a fanatical response from Muslims around the world. It was specifically that exercise of free speech, which would be undermined by this resolution, that I defended.

2. Argument to absurdity. When you characterised my statement on Islamic free speech (or rather, the lack thereof) as "flat out ignorant and totally wrong statement" without providing so much as a skerrick of evidence. You then went on to commit a classic ad-hominem attack by stating that I moved on to be "extremelly (sic) condescending".

3. More ad-hominem.

4. No logical fallacies. An incorrect conclusion, but no logical fallacies.

5. No logical fallacies. You asked for sources - I have now provided them.

6. More ad-hominem, combined with an appeal to motive, and a veiled argument to moderation when you stated that my assertion was "typical Islamophobic scaremongering".

Your conclusion: More ad hominem, combined with an ipse-dixitism and a red herring.

In short, I would not suggest that you take up debating. Any competant debater could tear you to shreds.

I see nothing inherently wrong with this; unless you can find where is says a private citizen is not allowed to voice their own opinions. What the resolution seems to be doing in my own opinion is preventing governments from doing these things. Now of course if it starts being used as an excuse to start arresting people of the streets for saying things about religion then we really need to start thinking about the validity of the whole thing in the first place.
I personally question the validity of religion...

no its not stupid at all, but it is interesting who'se introducing it, because an honest and fair implimentation would require iran to stop persicuting baha'is. egypt to allow its citizens to list something other then judaism, christianity, or islam on their i.d. cards.

ultimately it would play hob with any nation wanting to be a one religeon state, and that to me, sounds like a pretty darn good thing after all.

It certainly seems that way:

"Emphasizes that respect of religions and their protection from contempt is an essential element conducive for the exercise by all of the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion"

'Protection from contempt' is a vague term which I imagine could cover anything from threatening verbal abuse to satirical jokes, even theological/philosophical argumentation.


It could easily be seen as religion (as a belief system) is part of the integrity and dignity of one's self. Contempt for a person's dignity and personage should always be combated lest it lead to more.... aggressive state policies.

I wish people would stop harking on about "does this mean I can't be satirical about religion", it's really about governments and states clamping down on minorities and those belief systems 'outside' of state backed/sponsored religion.

Protecting the individual from abuses of the State is always a good thing.

I wish people would stop harking on about "does this mean I can't be satirical about religion", it's really about governments and states clamping down on minorities and those belief systems 'outside' of state backed/sponsored religion.

Browsing through the related news articles (http://news.google.com/news?um=1&ned=us&cf=all&ncl=1320377548), the instances that seem to be most worried about the decision are the press, followed by concerned citizen groups and even Western governments (read: EU).


For example (http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE52O5QY20090325):
Some 200 secular, religious and media groups from around the world on Wednesday urged the United Nations Human Rights Council to reject a call from Islamic countries for a global fight against "defamation of religion."

The groups, including some Muslim bodies, issued their appeal in a statement on the eve of a vote in the Council in Geneva on a resolution proposed by the 56-nation Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC).

Such a resolution, the statement said, "may be used in certain countries to silence and intimidate human rights activists, religious dissenters and other independent voices," and to restrict freedom of religion and of speech.

The resolution, its critics say, would also restrict free speech and even academic study in open societies in the West and elsewhere.

Islamic countries argue that criticizing or lampooning religions is a violation of the rights of believers and leads to discrimination and violence against them. Cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad, first published in a Danish newspaper, sparked riots in the Muslim world in 2006.

Protecting the individual from abuses of the State is always a good thing.
Except the resolution does no such thing - The impression I get is that it further validates religious opperssion across the globe.

Browsing through the related news articles (http://news.google.com/news?um=1&ned=us&cf=all&ncl=1320377548), the instances that seem to be most worried about the decision are the press, followed by concerned citizen groups and even Western governments (read: EU).
Unbinding.
Unbinding.
Unbinding.

Why would governments be worried about an unbinding decision pray tell?

-snip-
Yes, a lot of rights can be interpreted from one side, and completely differently from another. It's not cut and dry.

Except the resolution does no such thing - The impression I get is that it further validates religious opperssion across the globe.
The impression I get is that it (morally) prevents governments from abusing minority religions in their states.

Urges States to take actions to prohibit the dissemination, including
through political institutions and organizations, of racist and xenophobic ideas and material aimed at any religion or its followers that constitute incitement to racial and religious hatred, hostility or violence;

Emphasizes that respect of religions and their protection from contempt is an essential element conducive for the exercise by all of the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion;
Maybe Christians and Jews in the Middle Eastern/Islamic states might be looking at these parts?

I wasn't aware that being free from hurt feelings was a human right.

In Malaysia, at least, religious discrimination (although it's organised along racial lines) is essentially official policy. I don't know about the police's attitudes to specific incidents of discrimination specifically, but given that they're not of superb quality (lol corruption) I find this quite plausible.

It's not religious based. It's ethnic based. They issue identity cards with ethnicity coded in the numbers. The religious departments give you problems based on your religion yes, but the federal policies are very much aimed specifically with race based filters. They even have an official name for it. Malay supremacy.

You can be a Chinese/Indian Muslim, and you'll still get as big a shaft as a Chinese/Indian of any other religious group. But if you're a Malay, you get a free pass.

For example, non-Malay stalls and hawkers who set up shop illegally get torn down as fast as you can spot them, but Malay run stalls literally set up shop right under signs that forbid that activity and run your business with impunity all year.

The same applies for emergency services. Call in one, and the first thing they ask for your IC number. If it's a non-Malay code, they'll dither around before sending a response. If it's a Malay code, they'll be prompt, with differences of as much as half an hour compared to non-Malay response times, even if you live in the exact same area.

7. And your opinion, then, is that Islamic countries are somehow (one and all) not instigators of routine human rights abuses? Well, I've shot that one down - I think that the many sources I've provided prove that Islamic countries are among the worst offenders in this regard, regularly committing abuses that to Western eyes seem a relic of Mediaeval times, banished with the French Revolution.

That is rather untrue, considering the many abuses and horrors being perpetuated by the likes of North Korea, various African states (with at least one notable Christian leader who is also a nutcase), Myanmar and Cambodia, just to give a small sampling.

Religion is a nice smokescreen when it comes to policy abuse. The actual fact of the matter is that it happens because the people at the top are simply power mongering bastards who don't care who dies to prop them up and find that religion or ideology as the perfect thing to rally the masses around them.

It's not religious based. It's ethnic based. They issue identity cards with ethnicity coded in the numbers. The religious departments give you problems based on your religion yes, but the federal policies are very much aimed specifically with race based filters. They even have an official name for it. Malay supremacy.

You can be a Chinese/Indian Muslim, and you'll still get as big a shaft as a Chinese/Indian of any other religious group. But if you're a Malay, you get a free pass.

For example, non-Malay stalls and hawkers who set up shop illegally get torn down as fast as you can spot them, but Malay run stalls literally set up shop right under signs that forbid that activity and run your business with impunity all year.

The same applies for emergency services. Call in one, and the first thing they ask for your IC number. If it's a non-Malay code, they'll dither around before sending a response. If it's a Malay code, they'll be prompt, with differences of as much as half an hour, even if you live in the exact same area.

Yes, I know, which was why I said it was organised on ethnic lines - it usually works out to discrimination against non-Muslims but you're right. Should have been more clear, sorry.

You have to wonder. If this resolution had come out of Christian countries would people be scare mongering and whining about it?Would you?

Yes, I know, which was why I said it was organised on ethnic lines - it usually works out to discrimination against non-Muslims but you're right. Should have been more clear, sorry.

The bit about the police also works out to about the same. They never ask you for your religion, but they will discriminate based on your skin color and features (Chinese, Indian and Malay facial features are rather distinct).

It might work out as discrimination against non-Muslims, but that's primarily because almost all Malays registered as Muslims at birth with only a very small proportion of the dwindling Chinese and Indian population being Muslims to begin with.

Most religions inherently declare that they are the Only Correct Religion hence other religions have to be - by extension - false, incorrect, blasphemous, worthless, dangerous, misleading, etc.. (the actual terms applicable depend on the wording & interpretation of the Holy Book/Word/Doctrine/Noodly Appendage/Spirit/Stone Circle/whatnot)

...

In order to apply the previous paragraph to real world: Replace Religion A & Religion B with [almost] any major religion.

Again, this is not defamation, unless you're stretching the definition of that word to an unreasonable degree.

I wasn't aware that being free from hurt feelings was a human right.

Only if they're hurt feelings because someone defamed your religion.

Again, this is not defamation, unless you're stretching the definition of that word to an unreasonable degree.

Well, one of the more visible sources of criticism for the resolution has been the poor definition of the word defamation.

Consider my example in slightly less diplomatical tones: People believing religon B are dangerous & worthless scum trying to steer you away from the righteous path of religion A, so sayeth our holy men/book/<insert source of interpretation here>

...Which is still the core message of most holy books. :tongue:

Unbinding.
Unbinding.
Unbinding.

Why would governments be worried about an unbinding decision pray tell?
Yes, why indeed...Perhaps it's the fact that certain instances are able to use terms like "UN approved", "UN condemned" or some such when oppressing or criticizing others.

As you well know, unbinding resolutions can have bigger impact than actual laws, consider for example - heh - people following religious edicts vs speed limits.

Yes, a lot of rights can be interpreted from one side, and completely differently from another. It's not cut and dry.
Indeed, which makes such open decisions potentially dangerous.

The impression I get is that it (morally) prevents governments from abusing minority religions in their states.
The way I intepret that is that it allows majority to curtail minorities who criticize the status quo.

For example someone, say, a Christian criticizes the government in some Middle-Eastern country over extremes of Islamic law, perhaps using less diplomatic tones (or so the government of the State claims) => (S)He gets a punishment from something even the UN has condemned: Religious defamation!

Why do you think it isn't just a matter of time before political ideas receive similar protection? Not all political ideas, of course, just those associated with humanity and all that.


You dare question the wisdom of the Secretary General? YOU DARE? Off with your head!

Well, one of the more visible sources of criticism for the resolution has been the poor definition of the word defamation.

Consider my example in slightly less diplomatical tones: People believing religon B are dangerous & worthless scum trying to steer you away from the righteous path of religion A, so sayeth our holy men/book/<insert source of interpretation here>

...Which is still the core message of most holy books. :tongue:
...

I would assume that they use the legal term for defamation, which is quite precise.

While religion could be used as a rationale for religious bigotry, the aim of this document is to reduce the religious bigotry, not address the underlying rationale, if any.

So, in your example, you could reword it to this: People believing religon B are dangerous & worthless scum, because the ideology of our national party/culture/ says so. Note the lack of religious reasoning for the bigotry.

I think this measure is more to ensure that the Wilderses, Fortyuns, and Blochers don't start demanding that all Muslims wear little red crescents wherever they go.

I would assume that they use the legal term for defamation, which is quite precise.
I seriously doubt that because UN is a global institution and the members of the council itself come from - most likely - incompatible legal backgrounds (relative to definition of defamation).


Then again, we don't know it and, more importantly, most likely the people who will apply the resolution - for PR purposes - won't know it either.

I think this measure is more to ensure that the Wilderses, Fortyuns, and Blochers don't start demanding that all Muslims wear little red crescents wherever they go.
I'm not denying that the intent wouldn't be good, just that the actual result will be anything good.

Does this mean every time someone insults Palin the UN is going to show up and throw them in jail ??

Does this mean every time someone insults Palin the UN is going to show up and throw them in jail ??


If they want to arrest me for that, so be it. Let them, I invite them to do so! And with it would come a political revolution our country so badly needs anyhow. Thats more or less how Hitler did it in Germany: 'cep we can do it for good here in America :D

I seriously doubt that because UN is a global institution and the members of the council itself come from - most likely - incompatible legal backgrounds (relative to definition of defamation).


Then again, we don't know it and, more importantly, most likely the people who will apply the resolution - for PR purposes - won't know it either.

Or they might have similar enough definitions of defamation that it won't be a problem.

I'm not denying that the intent wouldn't be good, just that the actual result will be anything good.

Or it might be good.

I'm not too worried about what might happen. I tend to worry more about what is likely to happen. I don't think this will turn the UN nations into theocracies.

Freedom of expression is the most powerful and important right for a reason. Its given special protection because, through the free airing of ideas and disagreements, people become more tolerant, less ignorant, and better liberal democrats.

The key here is not how offensive the speech is, because that doesn't matter. People who speak out against Islam because everyone one of those sand n-ers hates America are not given a serious, major forum in any liberal democracy I know of. But those who air grievances such as those legitimate concerns over the Muslim world's refusal or denial of problems they have and create are speaking out on important issues which should be addressed. I can understand why the Muslim world would reject such ideas outright, but even Islam cannot stand against change forever.

The Catholic Church tried, and look where it got them.

That is rather untrue, considering the many abuses and horrors being perpetuated by the likes of North Korea, various African states (with at least one notable Christian leader who is also a nutcase), Myanmar and Cambodia, just to give a small sampling.

Religion is a nice smokescreen when it comes to policy abuse. The actual fact of the matter is that it happens because the people at the top are simply power mongering bastards who don't care who dies to prop them up and find that religion or ideology as the perfect thing to rally the masses around them.

Your point is valid: Islamic states are far from the only perpetrators of human rights abuses.

However, I didn't say that they were the only such/ I simply said "they are among the worst" which, by the reports of Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, Reporters Sans Frontieres and many other such organisations, they are. On a systematic level.

I may be reaching in attributing it to their religion - but 48 of 48 with poor human rights records and nothing else in common is a fairly compelling argument. And since they are the nations pushing this resolution, pointing out their utter hypocrisy in the field of human rights is valid, I think.

...
I may be reaching in attributing it to their religion - but 48 of 48 with poor human rights records and nothing else in common is a fairly compelling argument. And since they are the nations pushing this resolution, pointing out their utter hypocrisy in the field of human rights is valid, I think.

Are they all developing nations?

Are they all developing nations?And what does that have to do with anything?

And what does that have to do with anything?

... but 48 of 48 with poor human rights records and nothing else in common is a fairly compelling argument....

Did you notice how his/her argument depends on them having nothing else in common?

If they do have other things in common (i.e. lack of social and economic development), then it's a little harder to just make the assumption that it's all Islam's fault.

I find it funny that you're saying 'hate crimes' and 'fairness' doctrine lead to closed minds and lack of dialogue, when just the discussions about both fairness doctrine and hate crimes are causing dialogue.

Anytime the dissemination of information is controlled by an authority, it leads to closed minds. The fairness doctrine is requiring that information be presented in a certain way, which is a huge step closer to requiring what is presented.

I find it similarly amusing that you think telling people to shut the heck up would somehow lead to dialogue.

I was referring to telling the people who just want to scream and shout to shut up so those interested in dialogue could have it.

If I were you, I'd go and read things like this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard

...to understand why forcing the issue on things like hate-crime are essential, and why the closed minds were the PRECURSORS of hate-crime legislation concepts, not a result of them. (And why 'telling them to shut the heck up' is a nonsensical ideal).

I never said that hate crimes led to closed minds. If I did, that was a huge syntactic or semantic error on my part. What I said (or at least meant to say) was that they were punishing what we have no right to punish: opinion. If they kill a black man or a lesbian or whatever, then punish them appropriately. Whether they killed out of hate or not, has nothing to do with the punishment they receive, imo.

Of course we need to have dialogue about hate and why it's wrong (or, in some very, very rare cases, right), just like we should have and need dialogue about all opinions which are good or wrong or helpful or hurtful. But that doesn't give the government the right to punish opinion.

As for Fairness Doctrine, I don't see any likelihood of it passing any time soon, but there's no really GOOD reason why it shouldn't - except that those who govern through hate and fear don't want their agenda challenged with reason and facts. Blocking Fairness Doctrine is actually deliberately fostering both closed minds AND the death of dialogue.

No, I must disagree. The point of the Fairness Doctrine is not to open minds. It is to break the hegemony that the conservatives seem to have over the radio waves. The point is not to open minds. The point it to weaken the conservatives, imo. Is that necessarily a bad goal in and of itself? No.

My point (which upon rereading it was poorly explained) was not that the Fairness Doctrine will suddenly make everyone stop thinking. My point was that and state controlled format of what is said or what ideas are discussed is limiting the marketplace of ideas and that closed minds come from that limit of the marketplace. I want to say all Africans go to hell? Fine, let me, but you'd better be standing by my booth telling passers-by how poisonous the fruit I'm selling is. (I don't believe that at all, by the way). It does no good to shut the booth down. Because how soon will it be before they come to the booth selling that Darwin was right? Or that being nice is a virtue?

Closing off what ideas can be discussed, how they can be discussed, where they can be discussed is never good. I can tell someone to get out of my house for saying things. The church can excommunicate someone or ban them from the Lord's Supper. Schools can expel and businesses can fire. But as soon as we put the power of the sword behind what's said, we run into a world of trouble and new sense of legitimacy behind the taboo of what is said and isn't. That leads to closed minds especially in our society where the state is God.

And what does that have to do with anything?


Industrialized, Developed nations rarely have as many problems with human rights issues as non-developed or developing nations (talking about in the modern era). Notable exceptions: Serbia, Russia, and Israel.

Examples of human rights abuses in developing nations: Iran, North Korea, China (I don't consider it first world since only a small portion of the country is developed), Uganda, DR Congo, Saudi Arabia, Rhodesia (Zimbabwe), Angola, Iraq (Saddam/Ba'athist era), Afghanistan, Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan I think had some questionable dealings, and many others.

You don't exactly see human rights violations occuring in say, Britain, Canada, Japan, Germany, France, Belgium, Spain, America, or Norway eh?

EDIT: Remember, I said nothing about Islam being the impetus for human rights violations. Now, accepting a violent interpretation of the religion is often times how many of those bastards attain power, but the religion itself isn't at fault, its the twisted people who conjure up the philosophy.

I may be reaching in attributing it to their religion - but 48 of 48 with poor human rights records and nothing else in common is a fairly compelling argument. And since they are the nations pushing this resolution, pointing out their utter hypocrisy in the field of human rights is valid, I think.

I dispute your assertion that they have nothing else in common. Every example you can likely point out has an established circle of highly placed people tied to the local religion and exerts excessive influence on the governmental structure. Furthermore, each and every one of these circles consists of vicious bastards well versed in the dogma of dog eat dog. That they use religion as a means of achieving their ends is by no means an indicator of the nature of the religion in itself.

Did you notice how his/her argument depends on them having nothing else in common?
I see. Well, in fact the economic disparities among the Islamic states are quite extreme.
If they do have other things in common (i.e. lack of social and economic development), then it's a little harder to just make the assumption that it's all Islam's fault.
This is what was raising my red flag: you are actually saying that poor people ought to be EXPECTED to be brutes?

I see. Well, in fact the economic disparities among the Islamic states are quite extreme.

But none of them are developed nations.

This is what was raising my red flag: you are actually saying that poor people ought to be EXPECTED to be brutes?

No. I was saying that there is a correlation between levels of development and human rights issues. To go from there and say that poverty causes such abuses is reductionistic, simplistic, and not waht I'm saying.

I would also like to point out that saying that Islamic people are expected to be brutes is also reductionist and simplistic.

My point (which upon rereading it was poorly explained) was not that the Fairness Doctrine will suddenly make everyone stop thinking. My point was that and state controlled format of what is said or what ideas are discussed is limiting the marketplace of ideas and that closed minds come from that limit of the marketplace. I want to say all Africans go to hell? Fine, let me, but you'd better be standing by my booth telling passers-by how poisonous the fruit I'm selling is. (I don't believe that at all, by the way). It does no good to shut the booth down. Because how soon will it be before they come to the booth selling that Darwin was right? Or that being nice is a virtue?

Closing off what ideas can be discussed, how they can be discussed, where they can be discussed is never good. I can tell someone to get out of my house for saying things. The church can excommunicate someone or ban them from the Lord's Supper. Schools can expel and businesses can fire. But as soon as we put the power of the sword behind what's said, we run into a world of trouble and new sense of legitimacy behind the taboo of what is said and isn't. That leads to closed minds especially in our society where the state is God.

To explain more succinctly, I think that anytime opinion has the opportunity to be punished, there is the closing of minds. The only institutions with the power to punish opinion are the Church and the Family, and then only in very concrete, limited ways and instances. Any other institution has only the power to punish actions. Anytime the State or another institution claims to itself the power to punish opinion, we are entering many difficulties and problems.

Anytime the dissemination of information is controlled by an authority, it leads to closed minds. The fairness doctrine is requiring that information be presented in a certain way, which is a huge step closer to requiring what is presented.


...do you actually know what 'fairness doctrine' would do?


I was referring to telling the people who just want to scream and shout to shut up so those interested in dialogue could have it.


The problem is, the people who DON'T want the debate might do something like beating you to death.


I never said that hate crimes led to closed minds. If I did, that was a huge syntactic or semantic error on my part. What I said (or at least meant to say) was that they were punishing what we have no right to punish: opinion.


No, they're not 'punishing opinion' - they're attempting to treat a specific problem - which isn't opinions, it's 'ideological crime'.


If they kill a black man or a lesbian or whatever, then punish them appropriately. Whether they killed out of hate or not, has nothing to do with the punishment they receive, imo.


Do you believe in self-defence?

If so - you allow that 'crimes' are not equal - indeed, that something that WOULD be a crime, can be not-a-crime, under some circumstances.

Is it hard to reconcile, then, that crimes are not equal?


Of course we need to have dialogue about hate and why it's wrong (or, in some very, very rare cases, right), just like we should have and need dialogue about all opinions which are good or wrong or helpful or hurtful. But that doesn't give the government the right to punish opinion.



No, I must disagree. The point of the Fairness Doctrine is not to open minds. It is to break the hegemony that the conservatives seem to have over the radio waves.


Bill O'Reilly wishes that were true, perhaps - but it's not reflected in reality.


The point is not to open minds. The point it to weaken the conservatives, imo.


Again, that might be how conservatives (especially w.r.t. radio stations) would like to spin it...


My point (which upon rereading it was poorly explained) was not that the Fairness Doctrine will suddenly make everyone stop thinking.


Quite the opposite... not that it's likely to happen.


My point was that and state controlled format of what is said or what ideas are discussed is limiting the marketplace of ideas and that closed minds come from that limit of the marketplace. I want to say all Africans go to hell? Fine, let me, but you'd better be standing by my booth telling passers-by how poisonous the fruit I'm selling is.


Which is actually kind of the point of fairness doctrine.


(I don't believe that at all, by the way). It does no good to shut the booth down. Because how soon will it be before they come to the booth selling that Darwin was right? Or that being nice is a virtue?


I'm not sure what you think fairness doctrine is - you seem to have bought the Rush/Hannity/O'Reilly idea - that it somehow stops people saying something.


Closing off what ideas can be discussed, how they can be discussed, where they can be discussed is never good.


I'm generally in agreement with you.


But as soon as we put the power of the sword behind what's said, we run into a world of trouble and new sense of legitimacy behind the taboo of what is said and isn't. That leads to closed minds especially in our society where the state is God.

Are you aware that the Constitution 'puts the sword behind what's said'?

...do you actually know what 'fairness doctrine' would do?

It requires equal time for competing view points on various issues.

The problem is, the people who DON'T want the debate might do something like beating you to death.

Which is why the civil authority has the sword.

No, they're not 'punishing opinion' - they're attempting to treat a specific problem - which isn't opinions, it's 'ideological crime'.

And who is to define 'ideological crime'?

Do you believe in self-defense?

If so - you allow that 'crimes' are not equal - indeed, that something that WOULD be a crime, can be not-a-crime, under some circumstances.

Is it hard to reconcile, then, that crimes are not equal?

?

I believe in self-defense. I would say that not all killing is a crime, that some killing can be good, that some killing can be bad and that some killing is criminal or at least ought to be.

And I never said that all crimes are equal.


Bill O'Reilly wishes that were true, perhaps - but it's not reflected in reality.

Again, that might be how conservatives (especially w.r.t. radio stations) would like to spin it...

I don't listen to them, so I wouldn't know.

Which is actually kind of the point of fairness doctrine.

And why should that be the government's job?

I'm not sure what you think fairness doctrine is - you seem to have bought the Rush/Hannity/O'Reilly idea - that it somehow stops people saying something.

Requiring that people say something they hate is sometimes worse than stopping them from saying something they love.

Are you aware that the Constitution 'puts the sword behind what's said'?

I'm not sure I understand this.

Your declaration has no effect because you aren't a believer of the true religion. You are a Marxless heathen. Stop hate-speech against my religion!

;)

It's just awesome that you felt you hadn't quite made your illogical, unreasonable, and frankly stupid point the first time.

Look - I get it - you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. No need to beat a dead horse, kay?

It requires equal time for competing view points on various issues.


No, it doesn't. It requires honest, equitable and balanced. Not the same thing, at all.

And only on 'issues of public importance'.


And who is to define 'ideological crime'?


A crime that is rooted in ideology - like honour killings attributed to Islam, for example.


I believe in self-defense. I would say that not all killing is a crime, that some killing can be good, that some killing can be bad and that some killing is criminal or at least ought to be.

And I never said that all crimes are equal.


So - you admit all crimes are NOT equal. You can grant that the 'punishment' should not be equal in all cases (example: self-defence). So why are you arguing that the 'punishment' should be equal when the 'mitigation' is acting the other way? Shouldn't there be an 'opposite-of-self-defence' clause?


I don't listen to them, so I wouldn't know.


Which is worrying, because you're parroting their party line.


And why should that be the government's job?


FCC. Historically.


Requiring that people say something they hate is sometimes worse than stopping them from saying something they love.


The fact that people can say things - even lie - to a select audience, with no opposition or need to offer alternatives, other than their own consciences (if they have them) shouldn't be considered as being about stopping them saying something they love'. It should be about honesty and fairness. Okay - you don't want to tell the truth, that doesn't mean you should be allowed to lie - not in an unchallenged manner. And there's the problem, and the reason there WAS a fairness doctrine - you can lie on your radio show, and I have no way of correcting it, because YOU own the station.

Also - have you thought about how partisan and dishonest politics has been, in the absence of requirement to present fair and balanced representation?

"3. Further expresses deep concern at the intensification of the campaign of defamation of religions and the ethnic and religious profiling of Muslim minorities in the aftermath of the tragic events of 11 September 2001"

All of the 9/11 Hijackers were Muslims, and they used the Qu'ran (rightly or wrongly - I'm not interested in arguing that point here) to justify their actions. Further, extremists are not just a tiny minority - they are in charge of several Islamic nations, including key US allies-of-convenience, such as Saudi Arabia.

If the numbers indicate that members of Group X are more inclined to acts that threaten your citizens

Oh dear. You went from "9/11 Hijackers were Muslims" to "Muslims are more inclined to threaten your citizens." That was rather silly of you.

Yes, please pay no attention to Mr McVeigh over there. He's not Muslim, so anti-Muslim morons on the Internet think he's less likely to be a threat.

Sorry, dead people in Oklahoma City. It seems that New Chalcedon prefers you dead.

, you (as the security authorities) are derelict in your duties if you do not keep this in mind and act accordingly. The first duty of any government is the defence of its own people, not appeasement of a group of foreigners.

Thankfully for the good people of the US, you are not a Security Authority.

"4. Expresses its grave concern at the recent serious instances of deliberate stereotyping of religions, their adherents and sacred persons in the media and by political parties and groups in some societies, and at the associated provocation and political exploitation."

Sorry, Muslims. If Jesus is subject to satire, then so is Mohammed.

Oh boy. You went from "deliberate stereotyping of religions" to "Mohammed cannot be satirized but Jesus can."

Are you reading the same English that I am?

It's called "freedom of speech". And since I know that you don't understand what that means - not one Islamic country has any of it, after all

Oh, so you're a Muslim hater. So you are reading English just fine, you just don't care in your frothing, quasi-orgasmic rage. Well by all means, don't let me interrupt you with little things like appeals to logic or reason or basic fucking comprehension!

- I will graciously explain. Freedom of speech is what happens when people are allowed to express their opinions in any fashion they see fit. And if you are offended at what they say (provided it does not slander you personally)

lol. Thanks for providing examples of how 'freedom of speech' is not absolute there. I guess you already understand that, and simply don't care because you're shitting in your pants about Muslims.

Well by all means... don't let me interrupt in your gracious attempts to rationalize your fear.

"6. Expresses concern at laws or administrative measures that have been
specifically designed to control and monitor Muslim minorities, thereby stigmatizing them and legitimizing the discrimination that they experience."

I find this particularly offensive for one simple reason - even today, Muslims in the Western world are far better treated than non-Muslims in any Islamic country that you care to name.

So when you mentioned Jesus, you felt like ignoring the part where you turn the other cheek? The part where you're supposed to hold yourself to a high standard regardless of how other people act? Now it's "Wah, Muslim countries are evil SO WHY CAN'T WE BE?"?

But oh, you find it offensive. The idea that maybe Muslims are feeling marginalized, stigmatized or discriminated. It offends you - reality, that is - in a particular way.

Poor you. You are to be pitied, not laughed at.


Not *one* Islamic country both enshrines and practices freedom of religion. Even in supposedly tolerant Malaysia and Indonesia, shariah law is the basis of legislation, and the Chinese(Buddhist, for the most part) and Christian minorities are routinely ignored by the police when they complain of ill-treatment by Muslims.

Two wrongs DO make a right! New Chalcedon wishes it were so, so it is!

Further, can the Muslims name *one* ordinance, in any Western country, that is "specifically designed to control and monitor Muslim minorities"? Of course not! No such ordinance, law or executive order exists. They are lying outright when they claim that such do.

Were you also outright lying when you mentioned the defense of profiling Muslims by Security Authorities?

I guess you were, eh?

"7. Strongly deplores physical attacks and assaults on businesses, cultural
centres and places of worship of all religions and targeting of religious symbols."

When the Islamic world allows its non-Muslim minorities to display the cross, the Star of David, etc. etc. in public (currently a death-penalty offence in Saudi Arabia, to name just one), then they will have some right to open their bigoted mouths on this topic

So when you mentioned freedom of speech, you didn't mean it for Muslims? Everyone has a right to speak, except Muslims?

You are so full of shit that I'm starting to afraid even poking you will cause an avalanche of shit to come spewing out of your pores. I mean, an even bigger avalanche than the one you're currently spewing here.

. In the meantime, for them to open up in this field only displays their stunning hypocrisy for all the world to see.

Only New Chalcedon gets to be a hypocrite! It's not fair if hypothetical Muslims get it on the action!

"14. Deplores the use of printed, audio-visual and electronic media, including the Internet, and of any other means to incite acts of violence, xenophobia or related intolerance and discrimination towards Islam or any religion."

When Islamic groups have their little "recruiting" websites taken down, when official Saudi textbooks no longer call for the destruction of Israel and a second Holocaust, when mosques in the West no longer preach hatred and intolerance to their young folk in our lands, then they can criticise the West for allowing some form of criticism of their religion to stand.

In the meantime, they need to STFU.

People like you need to STFU. There you go, mentioning the Holocaust and Israel as if you really give a shit. You don't - don't even fucking pretend you do.

I'm a Jew. People like you try to bash anyone who disagrees with your venomous anti-Islamism with the verbal hammer of the Holocaust. You probably also like to accuse people of being Anti-Semites for criticizing Israel. By blathering these scare terms you wear them out, and ironically make it easier for people to not give a single shit about genocide.

So you can take your faux self-righteousness and shove it right back where it came from.


In summary - each of the things they accuse the West of doing, they themselves do in spades to their own minority populations.

In summary, hypocrisy is the very basis of your argument. I guess two wrongs make a right in your own, special and unique book. That's nice. Back in reality, however, no one accused "the West" of doing anything, so you're just burning strawmen there.

For them to play the 'victim' card is a stunning display of hypocrisy of the highest order.

Except they are victims, generally by pipsqueak neo-nazis like yourself. Sorry you disagree with reality. Muslims are discriminated against, and pointing out reality is not "a stunning display of hypocrisy of the highest order." No, my friend - that describes every fucking statement you've shat out above. Physician, heal thy own fucking self.


For the world media to let them get away with it shows just how far they have gone down the road to dhimmitude.

In summary, you hate and fear Muslims, and that's all you're about.


Please take a look at my sig. The Hirsi Ali quote is particularly apt, I think, and summarises my feelings on the topic.

Oh, are those your feelings? Oh, I care about your feelings! Please, share more of your feelings with us! Your feelings are soooo important!

I dispute your assertion that they have nothing else in common. Every example you can likely point out has an established circle of highly placed people tied to the local religion and exerts excessive influence on the governmental structure. Furthermore, each and every one of these circles consists of vicious bastards well versed in the dogma of dog eat dog. That they use religion as a means of achieving their ends is by no means an indicator of the nature of the religion in itself.

Oh, really? And her I was thinking that Turkey's Kemalist governmental philosophy was centred around removing the influence of the clergy in government. Which, BTW, they succeeded in doing - but Turkey, despite being a developed nation, is still not exactly a nice place when it comes to human right. Just ask the Kurds.

Did you notice how his/her argument depends on them having nothing else in common?

If they do have other things in common (i.e. lack of social and economic development), then it's a little harder to just make the assumption that it's all Islam's fault.

1, No, my argument that the Islamic nations are hypocrites does not have anything at all to do with why their human rights records are so appalling - that's a side topic to the main one. My main point (pertinent to the thread's topic) is, and was, that for these nations to be pushing any kind of human rights agenda is hypocritical in the extreme. Far less a religious freedom agenda, given their collective and individual disdain for religious freedom as applied to non-Muslim minorities within their own countries.

2. A number of Islamic countries are economically developed: Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar and the UAQ are all international services centres, with very large banking and other financial industries servicing significant portions of the world's demand for such. Turkey is the largest industrial power in Southeast Europe, and is frequently referred to as a regional powerbroker.

Turkey is frequently cited as a nation that is socially advanced, and is referred to in the CIA World Handbook as a "developed nation", with the explicit statement in its Constitution that there is no State religion, combined with the republican form of government and emphasis on social structures and institutions.

However, Turkey's HR record - even in the arena of religion, where the Constitution mandates no state interference - is lacking, to say the least. So, no - the only thing that every Islamic-majority nation has in common is that they are Islamic-majority nations.

Are they all developing nations?

Answered above: the majority are, but not all.

Also, to answer the various people who have been saying that it's just one interpretation of Islam: Why is it that this interpretation holds power, with its restrictions on religious minorities, LGBT people and women (with three exceptions that I can think of for that last - Turkey, Indonesia and Malaysia have few to no restrictions on women in public life) that it entails, in every Islamic country?

No, it doesn't. It requires honest, equitable and balanced. Not the same thing, at all.

And only on 'issues of public importance'.

I don't see the difference.

And who decides what's an issue of public importance. That's very vague and can be made to mean almost anything.

A crime that is rooted in ideology - like honour killings attributed to Islam, for example.

Oh, I thought you meant "It's a crime to hold this ideology." Okay, then.

I still say that murder because he's gay and murder because he slept with my wife should be treated the same.

So - you admit all crimes are NOT equal. You can grant that the 'punishment' should not be equal in all cases (example: self-defence). So why are you arguing that the 'punishment' should be equal when the 'mitigation' is acting the other way? Shouldn't there be an 'opposite-of-self-defence' clause?

I'm obviously not understanding something. I'm denying that self-defense is a crime. We can have a trial to determine whether the killing was truly self-defense or not, but self-defense is not a crime.

When we look at someone's motive, I do not think that we should be judging the motive. We should be looking into the seriousness of the killing: it was self-defense, it was an accident, it was 'collateral damage' during another crime, it was a crime of passion, it was a crime of serious intent. I think the last three should all receive the same penalty (execution) but we are looking into why the killing happened when we look at motive, not whether the motive demands a higher punishment. Did you mean to kill him? Yes? Guilty. Regardless of why you meant to kill him, the specific motive doesn't matter, or shouldn't matter.

Which is worrying, because you're parroting their party line.

Or the libertarian line, which they happen to agree with on this issue.

FCC. Historically.

Which I hate.

The fact that people can say things - even lie - to a select audience, with no opposition or need to offer alternatives, other than their own consciences (if they have them) shouldn't be considered as being about stopping them saying something they love'. It should be about honesty and fairness. Okay - you don't want to tell the truth, that doesn't mean you should be allowed to lie - not in an unchallenged manner. And there's the problem, and the reason there WAS a fairness doctrine - you can lie on your radio show, and I have no way of correcting it, because YOU own the station.

Also - have you thought about how partisan and dishonest politics has been, in the absence of requirement to present fair and balanced representation?

And if that were a government publication or PBS, great, have legislation or requirements about what must be said. Why are we forcing private persons and companies to say things or show things they may not agree with? If I don't listen to anything but Rush Limbaugh (sp?) that's my fault. And God judge me harshly if that be the case. The government has no business sticking its nose into the dissemination of information. That's how we end up with propaganda machines and 1984. You can argue that we already have those in a sense, but it's not nearly as bad as it could be yet.

And as for partisan politics, I don't care. I mean, I do care, but for me, that question has no place in this debate. The reason we have partisan politics is because people are too lazy and comfortable to think outside their own bubble. Which is a whole other fight. Are we now asking the government to pop its citizens' bubbles? Who gave it that right or responsibility?

Well, considering the UNHCR has such illustrious bastions of human freedom like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, China and Nigeria, it's sort of hard to take anything they say seriously. I mean, did the UN even make an effort to put nations that respect human rights on the Council? This just goes to show that the organization needs some serious reform if it's ever going to actually be an effective international body. Hell, at least Cuba does some good with its international medical aid program even if they're still authoritarian at home.

The most laughable part is that the freest countries on Earth aren't even part of the commission...you'd think at least one Scandinavian country would get a seat.

IMHO, these laws [...]
Laws?

I look forward to personally violating this resolution, early and often.
So you'll let anti-semetic sentiment run wild as often as you can?

Yes. Absolutely yes.

I may not agree with what you say, but I will kill to protect your right to say it.
When did the Right to Life start ranking below Freedom of Speech? Are you saying that Freedom of Speech should be unrestricted, even at the cost of people's lives?

The fact that countries are expected to okay actions with the UN is a limitation of sovereignty.
Is invading another sovereign nation an action that falls under the domain of national sovereignty?

This is stupid. Not only is this stupid,but so are most religions, minus my own. ;)


There, I committed a human rights violation. Arrest me!
Non-binding resolution.


It's called "freedom of speech". And since I know that you don't understand what that means - not one Islamic country has any of it, after all
What about South Africa?


"7. Strongly deplores physical attacks and assaults on businesses, cultural
centres and places of worship of all religions and targeting of religious symbols."

When the Islamic world allows its non-Muslim minorities to display the cross, the Star of David, etc. etc. in public (currently a death-penalty offence in Saudi Arabia, to name just one), then they will have some right to open their bigoted mouths on this topic. In the meantime, for them to open up in this field only displays their stunning hypocrisy for all the world to see.
So they shouldn't deplore these things since it happens in their home countries? This resolution can be seen as a promise to clean up their own houses?


"14. Deplores the use of printed, audio-visual and electronic media, including the Internet, and of any other means to incite acts of violence, xenophobia or related intolerance and discrimination towards Islam or any religion."

When Islamic groups have their little "recruiting" websites taken down, when official Saudi textbooks no longer call for the destruction of Israel and a second Holocaust, when mosques in the West no longer preach hatred and intolerance to their young folk in our lands, then they can criticise the West for allowing some form of criticism of their religion to stand.

In the meantime, they need to STFU.
So they shouldn't deplore these things since it happens in their home countries? This resolution can be seen as a promise to clean up their own houses?


In summary - each of the things they accuse the West of doing
Where do they accuse "the West" of doing these things?

For them to play the 'victim' card is a stunning display of hypocrisy of the highest order.
Russia? Cuba? Are they playing the "victim card" too?

Anyway. Given that (unfortunately) the UNHCR has failed to achieve anything meaningful in the past scaremongering over this is pointless.
Well, considering the UNHCR has such illustrious bastions of human freedom like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, China and Nigeria, it's sort of hard to take anything they say seriously.

Oh for fuck's sake!

http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/4857/stoppickingonbritney.jpg

United Nations Human Rights Council, not the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.

On the other hand I'm not sure what the reasoning behind this being used as a tool to crack down on dissent in Islamic countries would be, given that no country really gives a shit about the UN's views on human rights regardless...
The European - especially the Scandinavian - countries really do give a shit...

Religion is a nice smokescreen when it comes to policy abuse. The actual fact of the matter is that it happens because the people at the top are simply power mongering bastards who don't care who dies to prop them up and find that religion or ideology as the perfect thing to rally the masses around them.
This is very true, unfortunately. Well said, sir.

Does this mean every time someone insults Palin the UN is going to show up and throw them in jail ??
Non-binding resolution.

If they want to arrest me for that, so be it. Let them, I invite them to do so!
Non-binding resolution.

You don't exactly see human rights violations occuring in say, Britain, Canada, Japan, Germany, France, Belgium, Spain, America, or Norway eh?

Um, yes, you do. All countries have human rights abuses. Of those, listed, the U.K. and the U.S. are the worst offenders. Even Canada has issues of its own. I bet indigenous Canadians could give you plenty of examples.

Well, considering the UNHCR has such illustrious bastions of human freedom like Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, China and Nigeria, it's sort of hard to take anything they say seriously. I mean, did the UN even make an effort to put nations that respect human rights on the Council? This just goes to show that the organization needs some serious reform if it's ever going to actually be an effective international body. Hell, at least Cuba does some good with its international medical aid program even if they're still authoritarian at home.

The most laughable part is that the freest countries on Earth aren't even part of the commission...you'd think at least one Scandinavian country would get a seat.

I hear that the UN actually allows the US to be involved, despite their horrible human rights record. Who can take the UN seriously if they'll even let the US in?

The most laughable part is that the freest countries on Earth aren't even part of the commission...
Does Canada, France, Germany, Switzerland or the Netherlands count?

I hear that the UN actually allows the US to be involved, despite their horrible human rights record. Who can take the UN seriously if they'll even let the US in?

Christ, I wouldn't let anyone on the Security Council take part. The very nature of that kind of power leads to human rights abuses...of course, the US is still head and shoulders about most of the states on the UNHCR, but that doesn't mean we're the gold standard of human rights around the globe.

.of course, the US is still head and shoulders about most of the states on the UNHCR

http://generalitemafia.ipbfree.com/uploads/ipbfree.com/generalitemafia/emo-uowtantrumwd1.gifhttp://generalitemafia.ipbfree.com/uploads/ipbfree.com/generalitemafia/emo-uowbitchslapoh3.gif

You're doing it on purpose now, aren't you... http://generalitemafia.ipbfree.com/uploads/ipbfree.com/generalitemafia/emo-cry.gif

When we look at someone's motive, I do not think that we should be judging the motive. We should be looking into the seriousness of the killing: it was self-defense, it was an accident, it was 'collateral damage' during another crime, it was a crime of passion, it was a crime of serious intent.
We need to be concerned with whether the offender is a continuing danger to others. Most people who kill do so in an aberrational state of stupid emotion, regret it deeply, and would never do anything like it again (although they still need to be punished). Others are likely to turn into serial killers. This is an important distinction.
But why are you restricting "hate crimes" to murders? A much more usual context is vandalism: should someone who spray-paints "I LUV MARCY 4EVER" on a freeway overpass be sentenced the same as someone who spray-paints "ALL YIDS MUST DIE [swastika]" on a Jewish cemetary? The latter is far more likely to go on to crimes of violence.

Well, one of the more visible sources of criticism for the resolution has been the poor definition of the word defamation.

Consider my example in slightly less diplomatical tones: People believing religon B are dangerous & worthless scum trying to steer you away from the righteous path of religion A, so sayeth our holy men/book/<insert source of interpretation here>

...Which is still the core message of most holy books. :tongue:


Yes, why indeed...Perhaps it's the fact that certain instances are able to use terms like "UN approved", "UN condemned" or some such when oppressing or criticizing others.

As you well know, unbinding resolutions can have bigger impact than actual laws, consider for example - heh - people following religious edicts vs speed limits.


Indeed, which makes such open decisions potentially dangerous.


The way I intepret that is that it allows majority to curtail minorities who criticize the status quo.

For example someone, say, a Christian criticizes the government in some Middle-Eastern country over extremes of Islamic law, perhaps using less diplomatic tones (or so the government of the State claims) => (S)He gets a punishment from something even the UN has condemned: Religious defamation!

Exactly the point I made a page or two ago.

We need to be concerned with whether the offender is a continuing danger to others. Most people who kill do so in an aberrational state of stupid emotion, regret it deeply, and would never do anything like it again (although they still need to be punished). Others are likely to turn into serial killers. This is an important distinction.
But why are you restricting "hate crimes" to murders? A much more usual context is vandalism: should someone who spray-paints "I LUV MARCY 4EVER" on a freeway overpass be sentenced the same as someone who spray-paints "ALL YIDS MUST DIE [swastika]" on a Jewish cemetary? The latter is far more likely to go on to crimes of violence.

Well murder has the least grey it seems. I think that in the case of murder (a killing which is on purpose, not an accident and not in self-defense) the guilty party should receive the death penalty in every case (with maybe some exceptions like legitimate insanity, maybe).

In the case of graffiti or other "less serious" crimes, I still think the guilty should receive the same penalty whether it's about Marcy of the Jews. We are not punished for the likelihood that we committed crimes, but because we committed a crime.

Laws?




Yeah I know. I realised it was non-binding and not a law after reading the article a second time. I just can't be bothered editing. I'm too busy and important :tongue:

Well murder has the least grey it seems. I think that in the case of murder (a killing which is on purpose, not an accident and not in self-defense) the guilty party should receive the death penalty in every case (with maybe some exceptions like legitimate insanity, maybe).

In the case of graffiti or other "less serious" crimes, I still think the guilty should receive the same penalty whether it's about Marcy of the Jews. We are not punished for the likelihood that we committed crimes, but because we committed a crime.

So you think that the two crimes are completely equal? The reason we have hate crimes is because the sentiments behind the 2 forms of graffiti are so different. One is thoughtless, mindless vandalism; the other is intended to incite fear and express hatred and violent intentions. One is put there out of boredom, one is expressing support for the regime that murdered millions of the people who that graveyard serves.

Hate crimes are there to add a qualifier to existing crimes. Because it is a more serious offence if you break someone's jaw with a crowbar than if you do it with a fist, so should it be a more serious offence if you assault/murder/terrorise someone because of the colour of their skin, who they choose to love or whether they worship the right God or not.

It could easily be seen as religion (as a belief system) is part of the integrity and dignity of one's self.
As an integral and, importantly, uncritiqueable part of one's self? For if certain beliefs are to be earmarked as unassailable then we are on a dark road.

There's a big separation between respecting someone's choice to hold a belief and respecting that belief. If folks want to believe the world is flat, then more power to them. Just don't ask me to keep my mouth shut about how moronic that belief is. Same goes with religious belief; I see no reason why religious beliefs, because of their religious-ness, should be inherently respectable/respected.

I wish people would stop harking on about "does this mean I can't be satirical about religion", it's really about governments and states clamping down on minorities and those belief systems 'outside' of state backed/sponsored religion.
It may 'really' be about protecting minority religions (though the actions of the Islamic states seems to contradict this), but there is real danger that if this was an enforced law -- as I fully realise it is not -- then 'contempt' can easily cover things such as this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTzXJMU1sLc&feature=related), and certainly something like this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3CVPeYTVhGk).

Protecting the individual from abuses of the State is always a good thing.
'Protection from abuse' does not translate to 'protection from critical thinking'.

You are advocating policies that propose a limitation on freedom of thought. Though they may not be enforceable, there is nothing harmless about them.

Whether it's hate crimes or fairness doctrine or this, all it leads to is closed minds and lack of dialogue (especially with state-controlled education). If someone's being an ass or a jerk, tell him to shut the heck up and move on with the discussion.

Hate crimes are nonsense. If you kill someone, you get (or should get) executed. Regardless of whether you killed because you hated the person or not. And what if I hated him because he slept with my wife? Is that more or less worthy of a hate crime label than if I had hated him because he's Muslim? Hate crimes are a nonsense category that serves no purpose but to punish the 'majority' and make the 'minority' feel good, which is no basis for law.

Before responding tit-for-tat to your many posts related to hate crime laws, let me correct your gross misunderstanding of hate crime legislation in the United States with my standard tutorial:

Hate crime legislation -- other than establishing data collection and research -- merely provides for additional punishment for crimes based on intent.

In the case of federal law, Section 280003 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 merely provided for a sentence enhancement based on a hate crime intent.

That is codified in the Federal Sentencing Guidelines as follows:

§3A1.1. Hate Crime Motivation or Vulnerable Victim

(a) If the finder of fact at trial or, in the case of a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, the court at sentencing determines beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intentionally selected any victim or any property as the object of the offense of conviction because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation of any person, increase by 3 levels.

(b)(1) If the defendant knew or should have known that a victim of the offense was a vulnerable victim, increase by 2 levels.

(2) If (A) subdivision (1) applies; and (B) the offense involved a large number of vulnerable victims, increase the offense level determined under subdivision (1) by 2 additional levels.

(c) Special Instruction

(1) Subsection (a) shall not apply if an adjustment from §2H1.1(b)(1) applies.

Commentary

Application Notes:

1. Subsection (a) applies to offenses that are hate crimes. Note that special evidentiary requirements govern the application of this subsection.

Do not apply subsection (a) on the basis of gender in the case of a sexual offense. In such cases, this factor is taken into account by the offense level of the Chapter Two offense guideline. Moreover, do not apply subsection (a) if an adjustment from §2H1.1(b)(1) applies.

2. For purposes of subsection (b), "vulnerable victim" means a person (A) who is a victim of the offense of conviction and any conduct for which the defendant is accountable under §1B1.3 (Relevant Conduct); and (B) who is unusually vulnerable due to age, physical or mental condition, or who is otherwise particularly susceptible to the criminal conduct.

Subsection (b) applies to offenses involving an unusually vulnerable victim in which the defendant knows or should have known of the victim’s unusual vulnerability. The adjustment would apply, for example, in a fraud case in which the defendant marketed an ineffective cancer cure or in a robbery in which the defendant selected a handicapped victim. But it would not apply in a case in which the defendant sold fraudulent securities by mail to the general public and one of the victims happened to be senile. Similarly, for example, a bank teller is not an unusually vulnerable victim solely by virtue of the teller’s position in a bank.

Do not apply subsection (b) if the factor that makes the person a vulnerable victim is incorporated in the offense guideline. For example, if the offense guideline provides an enhancement for the age of the victim, this subsection would not be applied unless the victim was unusually vulnerable for reasons unrelated to age.

3. The adjustments from subsections (a) and (b) are to be applied cumulatively. Do not, however, apply subsection (b) in a case in which subsection (a) applies unless a victim of the offense was unusually vulnerable for reasons unrelated to race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation.

4. If an enhancement from subsection (b) applies and the defendant’s criminal history includes a prior sentence for an offense that involved the selection of a vulnerable victim, an upward departure may be warranted.

If you are familiar with the Sentencing Guidelines, then you know that sentencing enhancements are provided based on a very wide range of criteria -- including all sorts of things related to intent or motive.

The DoJ's National Criminal Justice Reference Service links to this site (http://www.adl.org/99hatecrime/intro.asp) for further explanation of hate crime legislation.

The law often recognizes motive or intent as an element of a crime or a basis for sentencing. Hate crime legislation is no more "thought crime" than the difference between first degree murder and manslaughter.

The Supreme Court addressed this issue in Wisconsin v. Mitchell (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/508/476.html ) (92-515), 508 US 47 (1993). I find the majority opinion persuasive. Obviously others are free to disagree.

Traditionally, sentencing judges have considered a wide variety of factors in addition to evidence bearing on guilt in determining what sentence to impose on a convicted defendant. See Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U.S. 808 820-821 (1991); United States v. Tucker, 404 U.S. 443, 446 (1972); Williams v. New York, 337 U.S. 241, 246 (1949). The defendant's motive for committing the offense is one important factor. See 1 W. LeFave & A. Scott, Substantive Criminal Law 3.6(b), p. 324 (1986) ("Motives are most relevant when the trial judge sets the defendant's sentence, and it is not uncommon for a defendant to receive a minimum sentence because he was acting with good motives, or a rather high sentence because of his bad motives"); cf. Tison v. Arizona, 481 U.S. 137, 156 (1987) ("Deeply ingrained in our legal tradition is the idea that the more purposeful is the criminal conduct, the more serious is the offense, and, therefore, the more severely it ought to be punished"). Thus, in many States, the commission of a murder or other capital offense for pecuniary gain is a separate aggravating circumstance under the capital sentencing statute. See, e.g., Ariz.Rev.Stat.Ann. 13-703(F)(5) (1989); Fla.Stat. 921.141(5)(f) (Supp. 1992); Miss.Code Ann. 99-19-101(5)(f) (Supp. 1992); N.C.Gen.Stat. 15A-2000(e)(6) (1992); Wyo.Stat. 6-2-102(h)(vi) (Supp. 1992).

... Thus, in Barclay v. Florida, 463 U.S. 939 (1983) (plurality opinion), we allowed the sentencing judge to take into account the defendant's racial animus towards his victim. The evidence in that case showed that the defendant's membership in the Black Liberation Army and desire to provoke a "race war" were related to the murder of a white man for which he was convicted. See id. at 942-944. Because "the elements of racial hatred in [the] murder" were relevant to several aggravating factors, we held that the trial judge permissibly took this evidence into account in sentencing the defendant to death. Id. at 949, and n. 7.

NOTE: The hate crime legislation applies equally whether your victim is gay or straight, Christian or Jew, black or white, etc.

NOTE2: Hate crime legislation has nothing whatsoever to do with silencing speech or policing thoughts.

Before entering the fray over specific points of the resolution, I applaud those that have actually read the resolution and responded to it--rather than engaging in hyperbole, distortion, and rank speculation.

I don't agree with every statement in the resolution at issue and won't defend all of them, but many of you have simply overreacted and/or imagined disadvantages.

Oh, really? And her I was thinking that Turkey's Kemalist governmental philosophy was centred around removing the influence of the clergy in government. Which, BTW, they succeeded in doing - but Turkey, despite being a developed nation, is still not exactly a nice place when it comes to human right. Just ask the Kurds.

And compared to the worst offenders of human abuses, which you claimed they all were, how does Turkey stack compared to them? Is punishment of rape victims legalized? Are honor killings allowed with a nudge and a wink? Are women required by law to dress in a specific manner? Are religious minorities oppressed by law? Is anti-government sentiment punished by your death and prison for up to three generations of your family?

Turkey may nor be Scandinavia, but you will be hard pressed to prove that it is among the worst offenders of human rights today.

Tell me, when was the last time the UN limited anyone's 'sovereignty'?

One year ago as of today.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iRHXSIoJJdXQpG3kPrRO2LWMnWTAD975RDM00

GENEVA (AP) — The U.N.'s top human rights body has approved a proposal by Muslim nations urging the passage of laws protecting religion from criticism.

Members of the Human Rights Council voted 23 in favor of a resolution Thursday to combat "defamation of religion." Eleven nations, mostly from the West, opposed the resolution and 13 countries abstained.


Another source, which paints a bit different picture:
http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSTRE52P60220090326

U.N. body adopts resolution on religious defamation

GENEVA (Reuters) - A United Nations forum on Thursday passed a resolution condemning "defamation of religion" as a human rights violation, despite wide concerns that it could be used to justify curbs on free speech in Muslim countries.
..
..
Pakistan, speaking for the 56-nation Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), said a "delicate balance" had to be struck between freedom of expression and respect for religions.

The resolution said Muslim minorities had faced intolerance, discrimination and acts of violence since the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States, including laws and administrative procedures that stigmatize religious followers.

"Defamation of religious is a serious affront to human dignity leading to a restriction on the freedom of their adherents and incitement to religious violence," the adopted text read, adding that "Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism."

It called on states to ensure that religious places, sites, shrines and symbols are protected, to reinforce laws "to deny impunity" for those exhibiting intolerance of ethnic and religious minorities, and "to take all possible measures to promote tolerance and respect for all religions and beliefs."
..
..
The 47-member Human Rights Council has drawn criticism for reflecting mainly the interests of Islamic and African countries, which when voting together can control its agenda.

Addressing the body, Germany said on behalf of the European Union that while instances of Islamophobia, Christianophobia, anti-Semitism and other forms of religious discrimination should be taken seriously, it was "problematic to reconcile the notion of defamation (of religion) with the concept of discrimination."

"The European Union does not see the concept of defamation of religion as a valid one in a human rights discourse," it said. "The European Union believes that a broader, more balanced and thoroughly rights-based text would be best suited to address the issues underlying this draft resolution."


Luckily the verdict isn't binding and will (hopefully) never, ever fly in Europe - On the other hand, it can still be used as an excuse not only by religious states but religions themselves when fighting criticism directed towards them.

Heck, I think even the pope might have had use for such a declaration few days ago (see: Pope vs Condoms -09 (http://www.wowowow.com/politics/pope-condoms-aggravate-hivaids-241559)) :tongue:


What do you think? Should religions be an idea more stringently protected than, say, political ideas? OTOH is there a way to form a resolution that wouldn't either bully minority religions or lead into abuse through the conception of myriad "hoax" religions?


Personally I think that curbing the freedom of speech because someone might be insulted because the idea they believe in is mocked is, in my honest opinion, a fucking disgrace. :mad:

(*United Nations Human Rights Council (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Human_Rights_Council))

F*ckin' cowards. Within the privacy of their own home, responsibility upon themselves, not for us to coddle and accommodate.

As an integral and, importantly, uncritiqueable part of one's self? For if certain beliefs are to be earmarked as unassailable then we are on a dark road.
Critiquing something does not equate to defaming it. I'm saying I can easily see a religious belief being argued as being part of one's identity, one's dignity and one's integrity -especially relating to culture. People like the Amish are springing to my mind.

There's a big separation between respecting someone's choice to hold a belief and respecting that belief. If folks want to believe the world is flat, then more power to them. Just don't ask me to keep my mouth shut about how moronic that belief is. Same goes with religious belief; I see no reason why religious beliefs, because of their religious-ness, should be inherently respectable/respected.
I believe that too - but you're taking it to mean critical and not defamatory.
There is a legal difference.

It may 'really' be about protecting minority religions (though the actions of the Islamic states seems to contradict this), but there is real danger that if this was an enforced law -- as I fully realise it is not -- then 'contempt' can easily cover things such as this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTzXJMU1sLc&feature=related), and certainly something like this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3CVPeYTVhGk).
Yes, the actions of Islamic states, and particularly the OIC of which I am no fan of, are often contradictory but using the wording of the 'legislation', I'm managing to argue the positive protection of minorities in less tolerant societies.

'Protection from abuse' does not translate to 'protection from critical thinking'.
Agreed. I don't see this going that far.

You are advocating policies that propose a limitation on freedom of thought. Though they may not be enforceable, there is nothing harmless about them.

I don't see it like that at all, but we simply disagree on perception of this.

Before entering the fray over specific points of the resolution, I applaud those that have actually read the resolution and responded to it--rather than engaging in hyperbole, distortion, and rank speculation.

I don't agree with every statement in the resolution at issue and won't defend all of them, but many of you have simply overreacted and/or imagined disadvantages.

Or to rephrase: "we are not totally detached from reality, contrary to the UNHCR".

And compared to the worst offenders of human abuses, which you claimed they all were, how does Turkey stack compared to them? ... Are women required by law to dress in a specific manner? Are religious minorities oppressed by law?

Turkey may nor be Scandinavia, but you will be hard pressed to prove that it is among the worst offenders of human rights today.

I believe Turkey bans the wearing of the hijab in public places, which would fall into both of these categories.

I believe Turkey bans the wearing of the hijab in public places, which would fall into both of these categories.

Source?

I believe Turkey bans the wearing of the hijab in public places, which would fall into both of these categories.

One is not allowed to wear such things in schools and governmental buildings if one works or studies there. One is not banned from walking in the street is such garb however.

I believe Turkey bans the wearing of the hijab in public places, which would fall into both of these categories.

See above, also Muslims aren't a religious minority in Turkey...

I believe Turkey bans the wearing of the hijab in public places, which would fall into both of these categories.

I seem to recall that it is more of a ban in specific areas rather than a general ban. Dress code isn't a human rights abuse just yet. To elaborate, the question was oriented more in lines of "You must wear this" rather than a ban against wearing them in either case.

well, with such well reasoned and thought out responses such as this, why even have a discussion?

Because. It's not like this forum needs a good reason to have a discussion... it merely needs the suggestion of a reason.

Mind you, if religious defamation should be considered a violation of human rights, ideological defamation should be considered as being the same. Ideological hardliners and religious fundamentalists have a lot in common, after all. Hell, often people are both!

1. Expresses deep concern at the negative stereotyping of all religions and manifestations of intolerance and discrimination in matters of religion or belief;Um, there are some religious beliefs that should be discriminated against. If we're sacrificing children to Moloch, that should surely be stamped out, yes? So merely because a practice is 'religious' or 'spiritual' does not mean that it is merely a matter of opinion or that it is free from discrimination of right and wrong, good and evil, commendable and deplorable.

1. So you trumpet freedom of speech, but not freedom of religion or freedom of conscience? You defend "negative stereotyping of all religions?

2. There is a well-defined distinction between religious belief and religious practices, especially where the latter violate neutral laws of general applicability.

2. Also expresses deep concern at attempts to identify Islam with terrorism, violence and human rights violations and emphasizes that equating any religion with terrorism should be rejected and combated by all at all levels;

3. Further expresses deep concern at the intensification of the campaign of defamation of religions and the ethnic and religious profiling of Muslim minorities in the aftermath of the tragic events of 11 September 2001;

All the September 11 attackers were Muslim (or at least of Muslim influence and ideas). Does that mean that Muslims are terrorists? No, of course not, but there seems to be many more Muslims willing to run out and kill the infidel than Jews, Christians, Buddhists or anyone else in our world today.

Which is an observation, not an argument.

1. Your bolded statement essentially concedes the point made by these parts of the resolution.

2. Christians have engaged in all sorts of violence, including terrorism. Does that mean that it is fair to equate Christianity with terrorism?

5. Recognizes that, in the context of the fight against terrorism, defamation of religions becomes an aggravating factor that contributes to the denial of fundamental rights and freedoms of target groups and their economic and social exclusion;Well, assuming the idea of rights to be correct, there's really nothing wrong here with the exception that sometimes rights must be withheld from some people. Naturally this can be done in a wrong fashion (as with the Japanese-Americans in WW2) or it can be done rightly (we truly think you are guilty of being a terrorist and are so detaining you). Just because someone screams "My religion!" does not mean that it's actually because of his religion that he is experiencing deprivation from his rights.

1. You scream about free speech but object to protection of "fundamental rights and freedoms"?

2. You defend the deprivation of fundamental rights and freedoms on the basis of religious belief?

6. Expresses concern at laws or administrative measures that have been specifically designed to control and monitor Muslim minorities, thereby stigmatizing them and legitimizing the discrimination that they experience;And any high-risk group should be watched closely. If it seemed more left-handed people were terrorists, we'd watch them more closely for questionable activity, wouldn't we? And rightly so, I think.

After the Oklahoma City Bombing, would the U.S. government been justified in "control[ling] and monitor[ing]" white males?

8. Urges States to take actions to prohibit the dissemination, including through political institutions and organizations, of racist and xenophobic ideas and material aimed at any religion or its followers that constitute incitement to racial and religious hatred, hostility or violence;
Why? This is nothing but an attempt to control ideas. Fight against bad and evil ideas. If you push them under, all you do is create resentment from the opposition and allure to it. And those who are not part of the opposition are usually nothing more than ignorant drones of thought.

Here I agree with you, but laws against hate speech are rather common in the "free" nations of the Western World.

9. Also urges States to provide, within their respective legal and constitutional systems, adequate protection against acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from the defamation of any religion, to take all possible measures to promote tolerance and respect for all religions and their value systems and to complement legal systems with intellectual and moral strategies to combat religious hatred and intolerance;
Hate crimes are nonsense. If you kill someone, you get (or should get) executed. Regardless of whether you killed because you hated the person or not. And what if I hated him because he slept with my wife? Is that more or less worthy of a hate crime label than if I had hated him because he's Muslim? Hate crimes are a nonsense category that serves no purpose but to punish the 'majority' and make the 'minority' feel good, which is no basis for law.

1. WTF does this portion of the resolution have to do with hate crimes?

2. As discussed in my earlier post, you clearly don’t understand hate crime legislation.

3. Much like your other comments, you don’t seem to be thinking this through. You really object to “protection against acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion” and the “promot[ion of] tolerance and respect for all religions”?


10. Emphasizes that respect of religions and their protection from contempt is an essential element conducive for the exercise by all of the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion;
Some religions deserve contempt. Again, we shouldn't shy from calling the sacrifice of children evil, whether or not it's a religious belief. And not all things to be called evil are so extreme as child-sacrifice.

1. I don’t like the “protection from contempt” language, but you seem to be opposing “the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion”?

2. You are ignoring the distinction between protection of religious beliefs and compliance of religious practices with neutral, generally applicable laws.


11. Urges all States to ensure that all public officials, including members of law enforcement bodies, the military, civil servants and educators, in the course of their official duties, respect all religions and beliefs and do not discriminate against persons on the grounds of their religion or belief, and that all necessary and appropriate education or training is provided;
Why? I don't want Osama bin Laden in my Cabinet, even if he didn't orchestrate 9/11 and other terrorist attacks. Neither do I want Tom Cruise. Or Pat Robertson. Their religious beliefs affect their actions and their beliefs in other domains. Religion (despite what secularist minds may say) cannot be separated from other spheres.

1. Once again your objection has next to nothing to do with what the resolution says.

2. You are now opposing the separation of Church and State? Why do you hate freedom?


12. Emphasizes that, as stipulated in international human rights law, everyone has the right to freedom of expression, and that the exercise of this right carries with it special duties and responsibilities, and may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but only those provided by law and necessary for the respect of the rights or reputations of others, or for the protection of national security or of public order, or of public health or morals;
Don't morals come from religion? Yes, though not exclusively. So by requiring speech to adhere to public morals, you're discriminating against religious systems that deny those morals.

1. You are objecting to “the right to freedom of expression”? Welcome to self-contradiction?

2. Morals don’t necessarily come from religion.

3. There is a kernel of truth in your objection to the limitation of free expression “for the protection …of public … morals,” but recognize this is merely re-stating existing international law and not saying anything new.

13. Reaffirms that general comment No. 15 of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, in which the Committee stipulates that the prohibition of the dissemination of all ideas based upon racial superiority or hatred is compatible with the freedom of opinion and expression, is equally applicable to the question of incitement to religious hatred;
Which is utter nonsense.

Your comments are so illuminating. As I said earlier I don’t necessarily agree with hate speech laws, but much of the Western World does.

Requests the High Commissioner for Human Rights to report on the implementation of the present resolution and to submit a study compiling relevant existing legislations and jurisprudence concerning defamation of and contempt for religions to the Council at its ninth session. So they're going to police us now? Hasn't the UN done enough limiting of sovereignty?

A UN commission studying and reporting on relevant EXISTING legislation concerning defamation of religion is “polic[ing] us” and “limiting sovereignty? Get a grip.

Its funny because many of the sponsors of this bill still execute people who leave Islam and repress religious minorities.

I take exception to the third, fourth, sixth, seventh and fourteenth points of this statement. In order:

"3. Further expresses deep concern at the intensification of the campaign of defamation of religions and the ethnic and religious profiling of Muslim minorities in the aftermath of the tragic events of 11 September 2001"

All of the 9/11 Hijackers were Muslims, and they used the Qu'ran (rightly or wrongly - I'm not interested in arguing that point here) to justify their actions. Further, extremists are not just a tiny minority - they are in charge of several Islamic nations, including key US allies-of-convenience, such as Saudi Arabia.

If the numbers indicate that members of Group X are more inclined to acts that threaten your citizens, you (as the security authorities) are derelict in your duties if you do not keep this in mind and act accordingly. The first duty of any government is the defence of its own people, not appeasement of a group of foreigners.

"4. Expresses its grave concern at the recent serious instances of deliberate stereotyping of religions, their adherents and sacred persons in the media and by political parties and groups in some societies, and at the associated provocation and political exploitation."

Sorry, Muslims. If Jesus is subject to satire, then so is Mohammed.

It's called "freedom of speech". And since I know that you don't understand what that means - not one Islamic country has any of it, after all - I will graciously explain. Freedom of speech is what happens when people are allowed to express their opinions in any fashion they see fit. And if you are offended at what they say (provided it does not slander you personally), then you have the perfect right to express your disapproval. You have *no* right to attempt to silence them.

"6. Expresses concern at laws or administrative measures that have been
specifically designed to control and monitor Muslim minorities, thereby stigmatizing them and legitimizing the discrimination that they experience."

I find this particularly offensive for one simple reason - even today, Muslims in the Western world are far better treated than non-Muslims in any Islamic country that you care to name.

Not *one* Islamic country both enshrines and practices freedom of religion. Even in supposedly tolerant Malaysia and Indonesia, shariah law is the basis of legislation, and the Chinese(Buddhist, for the most part) and Christian minorities are routinely ignored by the police when they complain of ill-treatment by Muslims.

Further, can the Muslims name *one* ordinance, in any Western country, that is "specifically designed to control and monitor Muslim minorities"? Of course not! No such ordinance, law or executive order exists. They are lying outright when they claim that such do.

"7. Strongly deplores physical attacks and assaults on businesses, cultural
centres and places of worship of all religions and targeting of religious symbols."

When the Islamic world allows its non-Muslim minorities to display the cross, the Star of David, etc. etc. in public (currently a death-penalty offence in Saudi Arabia, to name just one), then they will have some right to open their bigoted mouths on this topic. In the meantime, for them to open up in this field only displays their stunning hypocrisy for all the world to see.

"14. Deplores the use of printed, audio-visual and electronic media, including the Internet, and of any other means to incite acts of violence, xenophobia or related intolerance and discrimination towards Islam or any religion."

When Islamic groups have their little "recruiting" websites taken down, when official Saudi textbooks no longer call for the destruction of Israel and a second Holocaust, when mosques in the West no longer preach hatred and intolerance to their young folk in our lands, then they can criticise the West for allowing some form of criticism of their religion to stand.

In the meantime, they need to STFU.

In summary - each of the things they accuse the West of doing, they themselves do in spades to their own minority populations. For them to play the 'victim' card is a stunning display of hypocrisy of the highest order. For the world media to let them get away with it shows just how far they have gone down the road to dhimmitude.

Please take a look at my sig. The Hirsi Ali quote is particularly apt, I think, and summarises my feelings on the topic.

Meh.

Your objections seem to fall into three absurd categories:

1. Bleating about "freedom of speech" whether or not it is actually threatened by the language of the resolution and ignoring other freedoms like freedom of religion and equal protection under the law.

2. Arguing that the dirty Muslims deserve to be discriminated against and mistreated, which is unreasonable on its face.

3. Arguing that Islamic countries are being "hypocritical" in defending freedom of religion and other rights. OK, so what? Does that make what is said in this resolution any less true?

3. Arguing that Islamic countries are being "hypocritical" in defending freedom of religion and other rights. OK, so what? Does that make what is said in this resolution any less true?Yes, yes it does. A hypocrites lack any substantive credibility and therefore most of the countries who are attempting to stonewall this resolution through should not be talking about such matters until they thoroughly reform their systems. Otherwise, I will treat them with contempt in everything they do.

Yet, I do understand that Islamophobia is a problem and should be addressed by the people of the countries in a peaceful way, not through legal means. As there genuine criticisms of many Islamic countries that might be made illegal as being discriminatory of Islamic law, Sharia law.Which might I remind is often considered peculiar, at the very least, in Western nations.

So you think that the two crimes are completely equal? The reason we have hate crimes is because the sentiments behind the 2 forms of graffiti are so different. One is thoughtless, mindless vandalism; the other is intended to incite fear and express hatred and violent intentions. One is put there out of boredom, one is expressing support for the regime that murdered millions of the people who that graveyard serves.

Hate crimes are there to add a qualifier to existing crimes. Because it is a more serious offence if you break someone's jaw with a crowbar than if you do it with a fist, so should it be a more serious offence if you assault/murder/terrorise someone because of the colour of their skin, who they choose to love or whether they worship the right God or not.

I disagree. The civil authority has no authority to judge ideas and opinions, no matter how wrong, deplorable or evil they may be.

blah, blah
very informative
blah, blah

I don't have time to read either of your posts in depth right now.

From a quick skim (and from the arguments others have leveled against my thoughts), it seems the fault lies more in my poor diction and the assumption that 'everyone can see the link' on my part than with my lack of understanding (though that certainly plays a part). Not exclusively of course, but that seems to be the chief problem.

I will read return and read your posts thoroughly when I have more time this evening.

Yeah I know. I realised it was non-binding and not a law after reading the article a second time. I just can't be bothered editing. I'm too busy and important :tongue:
I'll buy that :tongue:

Or to rephrase: "we are not totally detached from reality, contrary to the UNHCR".

http://www.abfnet.com/forum/images/smilies/burn.gif

Gah! Get it right!

Critiquing something does not equate to defaming it. I'm saying I can easily see a religious belief being argued as being part of one's identity, one's dignity and one's integrity -especially relating to culture. People like the Amish are springing to my mind.
Why does something being 'part of one's identity' mark it off from criticism; mockery, even?

(If that's what you're suggesting.)

I love it when people make laws limiting freedom of speech in the name of religion or offending someone. It makes me all tingly inside the left hand side of my chest. Like a heart attack. *twitch*

I love it when people make laws limiting freedom of speech in the name of religion or offending someone.

Which laws are you thinking about? Surely not this unbinding resolution?

Which laws are you thinking about? Surely not this unbinding resolution?

Hate speech laws, I didn't read the resolution all the way through, et cetera.:tongue:

Is invading another sovereign nation an action that falls under the domain of national sovereignty?

Perhaps. In WW2, the Allies invaded Germany, got rid of a dangerous man who was violating the sovereignty of other countries, was committing hideous crimes, etc. Then they set Germany back up on their feet and left. That is perfectly legitimate, I think. It can be argued that the same thing is happening with NATO in Afghanistan right now and with the US and her allies in Iraq. Those are of course very much more controversial.

Protecting your own people through war if need be is under national sovereignty. Protecting the unjustly oppressed peoples of the world (such as in Darfur) is not a matter of sovereignty, but of morality. For these reasons, it is justifiable to invade another sovereign state. Otherwise, no, it's not okay.

Hate crime legislation -- other than establishing data collection and research -- merely provides for additional punishment for crimes based on intent.

Why should the government be punishing intent? Who gave it that power?

In the case of federal law, Section 280003 of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 merely provided for a sentence enhancement based on a hate crime intent.

That is codified in the Federal Sentencing Guidelines as follows:

§3A1.1. Hate Crime Motivation or Vulnerable Victim

(a) If the finder of fact at trial or, in the case of a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, the court at sentencing determines beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant intentionally selected any victim or any property as the object of the offense of conviction because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation of any person, increase by 3 levels.

So because it is my opinion that person x should receive action y for reason z and act on that opinion, I receive a more harsh penalty. The action is punished, but the opinion is punished on top of that, yes? Am I understanding correctly? If so, the government is punishing opinion, which is very wrong.

(b)(1) If the defendant knew or should have known that a victim of the offense was a vulnerable victim, increase by 2 levels.

"vulnerable victim"? I assume that means one who is a member of a more-likely-to-be-targeted-for-a-hate-crime group? That's a dubious category, if that's the case.

(2) If (A) subdivision (1) applies; and (B) the offense involved a large number of vulnerable victims, increase the offense level determined under subdivision (1) by 2 additional levels.

Ok

(c) Special Instruction

(1) Subsection (a) shall not apply if an adjustment from §2H1.1(b)(1) applies.

I'm lost here

Commentary

Application Notes:

1. Subsection (a) applies to offenses that are hate crimes. Note that special evidentiary requirements govern the application of this subsection.

Do not apply subsection (a) on the basis of gender in the case of a sexual offense. In such cases, this factor is taken into account by the offense level of the Chapter Two offense guideline. Moreover, do not apply subsection (a) if an adjustment from §2H1.1(b)(1) applies.

Ok

2. For purposes of subsection (b), "vulnerable victim" means a person (A) who is a victim of the offense of conviction and any conduct for which the defendant is accountable under §1B1.3 (Relevant Conduct); and (B) who is unusually vulnerable due to age, physical or mental condition, or who is otherwise particularly susceptible to the criminal conduct.

Ah, okay then, never mind the earlier question about vulnerable victims.

Subsection (b) applies to offenses involving an unusually vulnerable victim in which the defendant knows or should have known of the victim’s unusual vulnerability. The adjustment would apply, for example, in a fraud case in which the defendant marketed an ineffective cancer cure or in a robbery in which the defendant selected a handicapped victim. But it would not apply in a case in which the defendant sold fraudulent securities by mail to the general public and one of the victims happened to be senile. Similarly, for example, a bank teller is not an unusually vulnerable victim solely by virtue of the teller’s position in a bank.

Do not apply subsection (b) if the factor that makes the person a vulnerable victim is incorporated in the offense guideline. For example, if the offense guideline provides an enhancement for the age of the victim, this subsection would not be applied unless the victim was unusually vulnerable for reasons unrelated to age.

This is agreeable.

3. The adjustments from subsections (a) and (b) are to be applied cumulatively. Do not, however, apply subsection (b) in a case in which subsection (a) applies unless a victim of the offense was unusually vulnerable for reasons unrelated to race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation.

Eh, okay

4. If an enhancement from subsection (b) applies and the defendant’s criminal history includes a prior sentence for an offense that involved the selection of a vulnerable victim, an upward departure may be warranted.

Okay

If you are familiar with the Sentencing Guidelines, then you know that sentencing enhancements are provided based on a very wide range of criteria -- including all sorts of things related to intent or motive.

The DoJ's National Criminal Justice Reference Service links to this site (http://www.adl.org/99hatecrime/intro.asp) for further explanation of hate crime legislation.

The law often recognizes motive or intent as an element of a crime or a basis for sentencing. Hate crime legislation is no more "thought crime" than the difference between first degree murder and manslaughter.

Well, okay, maybe that's the way it is.

I don't think that's the way it should be though.
So far as motive goes I think there should be the following categories:

Pure accident
Accident through negligence
Accident through or because of committing another crime
Crime of passion
Crime of intent

I don't think motive should examined any further than to determine which of those categories the crime falls into. Once we go further than that, we start getting into "You're crime is worse because you thought this and acted on it," rather than "You committed a crime."

The Supreme Court addressed this issue in Wisconsin v. Mitchell (http://laws.findlaw.com/us/508/476.html ) (92-515), 508 US 47 (1993). I find the majority opinion persuasive. Obviously others are free to disagree.

The idea that motive is inherent to the crime? Okay. My qualm is that when we look at motive and dole at punishment according to it, we are by necessity judging the motive, we are judging the ideas that guided the action. We are saying that hate against Jews is worse than disregard for property. And I think it is. But I don't think it's the governments job to say so.

NOTE: The hate crime legislation applies equally whether your victim is gay or straight, Christian or Jew, black or white, etc.

NOTE2: Hate crime legislation has nothing whatsoever to do with silencing speech or policing thoughts.

I don't think it matters who it applies to, but if it's going to apply to anyone, it should apply to everyone, so I'm glad that if we're going to have it, we have it for everyone.

My argument is not that people are walking down the streets saying "Oh you made a dead-Jew joke [disgusting things]! To the paddy-wagon with you!" My point is that by the government saying "This motive is more acceptable than that motive" rather than just saying "You meant to do it or you didn't mean to do it" we are judging the ideas, the thoughts which are motivating the action. Which is fine, we can and should judge ideas, but not with the civil sword.

1. So you trumpet freedom of speech, but not freedom of religion or freedom of conscience? You defend "negative stereotyping of all religions?

?

I trumpet both freedom of speech and freedom of religion and conscience. I defend your freedom to make or propagate any negative stereotype of any and every religion you want. But be sure I'm going to speak against those stereotypes.

If we see a religion which has beliefs which are evil (what is evil?) and which has actions which are evil, we should be free to call it it evil. And it should be free to defend itself.

2. There is a well-defined distinction between religious belief and religious practices, especially where the latter violate neutral laws of general applicability.

There is no such thing as neutrality.

The civil government cannot function without some sense of morality, without some sense of what is morally acceptable and what is not (perhaps you would prefer the word ethical?), and our laws are based thereon.

1. Your bolded statement essentially concedes the point made by these parts of the resolution.

That was why I said it.

2. Christians have engaged in all sorts of violence, including terrorism. Does that mean that it is fair to equate Christianity with terrorism?

No, it's not fair. As a Christian, I am furious that people still harp on the Crusades. Yes, many Christians (myself included) still use battle and war imagery sometimes even using the word Crusade, but it's metaphorical and anyone who actually suggests Crusade or war is immediately silenced and disciplined.

You're free to say whatever you want, fair or unfair. And I am free to counter it.

1. You scream about free speech but object to protection of "fundamental rights and freedoms"?

Well, I was assuming that there are such things as rights. The right to travel freely can be denied you if we think you may be traveling to kill someone. It depends on what you mean by 'right' and by 'fundamental.' There are of course things which there is no justifiable reason to deny someone: free speech for example. But if we're pretty sure that you're going to kill someone (not just if we say we're pretty sure) then it is justifiable to stop you from killing them by detaining you.

2. You defend the deprivation of fundamental rights and freedoms on the basis of religious belief?

? No. My point was that just because a Muslim is in prison, doesn't mean he's in prison because he's a Muslim.

After the Oklahoma City Bombing, would the U.S. government been justified in "control[ling] and monitor[ing]" white males?

One white man is not the same as several Middle-Eastern men. And neither is the same as the vast populations of either demographic. If we're going to say "You look tan; you're a terrorist," yeah, that's dumb and wrong. If we're going to say "We're going to keep our eye on you, because you're Muslim, you're born in the Middle-East and you spent a lot of time in Afghanistan before coming to the US and enrolling in flight school," that's more intelligent and justifiable. Legally, it should be anyway. Morally, it depends a lot on motive, but the law should not judge motive.

1. WTF does this portion of the resolution have to do with hate crimes?

2. As discussed in my earlier post, you clearly don’t understand hate crime legislation.

It didn't seem like that large a leap in my mind when I wrote it.

3. Much like your other comments, you don’t seem to be thinking this through. You really object to “protection against acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion” and the “promot[ion of] tolerance and respect for all religions”?

Yes, I do. Dispelling hatred is not the job of the government. The civil authority has the sword to protect he who does good and to be a terror to he who does evil (yes, a terror, no, not a terrorist). Teaching you to love is the job of the Church, the Family and other institutions. The job of the State is to stop you from shooting me or to execute you after you shoot me.


1. I don’t like the “protection from contempt” language, but you seem to be opposing “the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion”?

I should be free to hold religion x in contempt and call them murderous dogs if I want to. And they should be free to say the same thing about me.

2. You are ignoring the distinction between protection of religious beliefs and compliance of religious practices with neutral, generally applicable laws.

?
I said nothing about law here. I said only that we should be free to call a spade a spade: call child-sacrifice evil even if it is the practice of a religion x.

1. Once again your objection has next to nothing to do with what the resolution says.

Actually, it does. If person x's belief says that all women are worth less than pond scum, I'm not going to put him in charge of a women's health organization. I'm going to discriminate against him because of his religion. And rightly so. And someone should discriminate against me if they were looking for someone to be in charge of a pro-same-sex marriage organization.

2. You are now opposing the separation of Church and State? Why do you hate freedom?

Religious institutions (the Church) can be separated from other spheres. Personal religious belief cannot be. The fact that there are people who can say "I think abortion is a sin, but I don't think the government has the right to legislate it" is a statement about their religious beliefs about the relationship between God and the state. This is getting into a different argument, though.

1. You are objecting to “the right to freedom of expression”? Welcome to self-contradiction?

?
No.

2. Morals don’t necessarily come from religion.

Well, how we define religion is a whole other debate.

The morals of many, definitely most, probably even the vast majority of people in the world come from religion. But by no means all, if we are using the common definition of the word religion, so I said that morals do not exclusively come from religion.

3. There is a kernel of truth in your objection to the limitation of free expression “for the protection …of public … morals,” but recognize this is merely re-stating existing international law and not saying anything new.

I do recognize that.

Your comments are so illuminating. As I said earlier I don’t necessarily agree with hate speech laws, but much of the Western World does.

I am free to stand against the West if I want to. And I often do.

A UN commission studying and reporting on relevant EXISTING legislation concerning defamation of religion is “polic[ing] us” and “limiting sovereignty? Get a grip.

I've recanted the limiting of sovereignty already.

And I do think they're policing us. "Check and make sure that everyone is following our guidelines or we can write a mean report about them." The UN doesn't have sword to smite us with, but they still do what they can (which is very little) to keep members in line.

What about those of us who do not have a religion? What about those of us who do not subscribe to any belief in supernatural things? A bit of a double-standard, don't you think?

The hidden message is quite clear, my dear Indri: those who do not accept a mythological system as the gospel truth should be treated as second-rate citizens. Fun fact: in the 18th century atheism was considered a punishable crime in many parts of Europe. There are those who would love to see the return of that situation...

As a Christian, I am furious that people still harp on the Crusades.
TCT never mentioned anything about the Crusades. Look at the modern world and you'll see plenty of Christians committing atrocities.

Protecting your own people through war if need be is under national sovereignty. Protecting the unjustly oppressed peoples of the world (such as in Darfur) is not a matter of sovereignty, but of morality. For these reasons, it is justifiable to invade another sovereign state. Otherwise, no, it's not okay.

Huh. Using morality as basis for action. That could lead use down some interesting avenues when the Chinese or Russians decide to do it.

What about those of us who do not have a religion? What about those of us who do not subscribe to any belief in supernatural things? A bit of a double-standard, don't you think?

The hidden message is quite clear, my dear Indri: those who do not accept a mythological system as the gospel truth should be treated as second-rate citizens. Fun fact: in the 18th century atheism was considered a punishable crime in many parts of Europe. There are those who would love to see the return of that situation...

Meh. Freedom of religion protects non-religion, atheism, agnosticism, and/or any other religious viewpoint or belief. See, for example, the U.S. First Amendment's protection of freedom of religion.

Not only does this resolution not treat non-believers as second-class citizens, but it expressly seeks to protect all freedom of thought, conscience, and religion.

TCT never mentioned anything about the Crusades. Look at the modern world and you'll see plenty of Christians committing atrocities.

No, s/he didn't, I brought them up. They are the most well-known. And my point still stands: atrocities have been screamed against and repented of by Christians since BC became AD. Has the majority fallen into sin? Yes. But we've repented of these atrocities committed and condemn the atrocities being committed.

My point was "Here is a concrete example of unfair generalization." I should have made that link clearer.

Huh. Using morality as basis for action. That could lead use down some interesting avenues when the Chinese or Russians decide to do it.

True peace maybe? It will take a lot more than Russia and China though.

Why does something being 'part of one's identity' mark it off from criticism; mockery, even?

(If that's what you're suggesting.)
Sorry, Chumbly - I skimmed by your post. :$

Something that is part of one's identity can be argued to be central to their dignity. Mocking someone's identity (as in using the example I picked at random, mocking the Amish because of their clothing, or facial hair, or general practices, that all are core to their belief system) can be easily argued that you are stripping that person of their dignity. I can see that, I might not agree that it should be so, but I can still see that argument being made and successfully too.

Criticism doesn't have to translate into mockery. Anything can and should be criticised, but not mocked.

No, s/he didn't, I brought them up. They are the most well-known. And my point still stands: atrocities have been screamed against and repented of by Christians since BC became AD. Has the majority fallen into sin? Yes. But we've repented of these atrocities committed and condemn the atrocities being committed.
*runs off to tell the Lord's Resistance Army, CIRA, ETA etc etc*

True peace maybe? It will take a lot more than Russia and China though.
You think the Chinese and Russians have the same interpretation of 'morality' as you do?

Oh my.

What about those of us who do not have a religion? What about those of us who do not subscribe to any belief in supernatural things? A bit of a double-standard, don't you think?
The resolution won't impact us, so don't worry. We'll be just as marginalized and reviled as we've always been. :D

The resolution won't impact us, so don't worry. We'll be just as marginalized and reviled as we've always been. :D
Makes me glad I live in a society that's almost completely secular, even if the people in charge ain't.

Anyway, this is just an advisory declaration sponsored by a bunch of primitive shithole countries who have made no progress of their own in over a thousand years. As long as they're ignored it's irrelevant.

*runs off to tell the Lord's Resistance Army, CIRA, ETA etc etc*

Yes, yes.

There are always people like that. But compared to the vast number of people claiming the name Christian around the world, they are nothing (in terms of numbers at least). The same with al Qaeda (sp?) and Islam. Doesn't mean they can be ignored or should be left to their own devices.

You think the Chinese and Russians have the same interpretation of 'morality' as you do?

Oh my.

Do they? No.

There's hope that they and everyone else will.

There are always people like that. But compared to the vast number of people claiming the name Christian around the world, they are nothing (in terms of numbers at least).
But compared to the tiny number of Christians who have "repented of these atrocities committed and condemn the atrocities being committed" they're quite large. You made a vast favorable generalization when you said "we" have done things.

But compared to the tiny number of Christians who have "repented of these atrocities committed and condemn the atrocities being committed" they're quite large. You made a vast favorable generalization when you said "we" have done things.

I don't know that that's true. Whether there has been a formal declaration of repentance or not, the vast majority of Christians (and I think Muslims) are appalled by and deplore such actions.

I don't know that that's true. Whether there has been a formal declaration of repentance or not, the vast majority of Christians (and I think Muslims) are appalled by and deplore such actions.

Except the Western media never forces the Christians to denounce such things en masse constantly or assume they all in fact quietly condone such behaviors.

I don't know that that's true. Whether there has been a formal declaration of repentance or not, the vast majority of Christians (and I think Muslims) are appalled by and deplore such actions.To be privately appalled is one thing. To "deplore" however requires public statement. Christians tend by and large to maintain an embarrassed silence about wrongs committed by other Christians.

Except the Western media never forces the Christians to denounce such things en masse constantly or assume they all in fact quietly condone such behaviors.

No, of course not, because the media like to fear-monger.

To "deplore" however requires public statement.

Really? I always thought deplore was merely a strong word for disgusted hate.

Christians tend by and large to maintain an embarrassed silence about wrongs committed by other Christians.

That's not my experience. Most Christians in my own circles and that I know in other circles are very quick to condemn such things.

The hidden message is quite clear, my dear Indri: those who do not accept a mythological system as the gospel truth should be treated as second-rate citizens. Fun fact: in the 18th century atheism was considered a punishable crime in many parts of Europe. There are those who would love to see the return of that situation...
In those Islamic countries that operate under full Sharia law, such as Iran, it still is a punishable crime: The laws that were laid down during (or only shortly after) the life-time of Mohammed are quite clear, anybody who's living in a land under Islamic rule and who doesn't belong to any of the religions that Islam classes as being "of the Book" has to choose between becoming a Muslim and the death penalty...

Really? I always thought deplore was merely a strong word for disgusted hate.
No, it refers to a public denunciation.
That's not my experience. Most Christians in my own circles and that I know in other circles are very quick to condemn such things.
In public? Since I don't move in Christian circles, I wouldn't hear anything that Christians are only willing to say to each other with nobody else listening.

Sorry, Chumbly - I skimmed by your post. :$
Not at all, dear chap.

Criticism doesn't have to translate into mockery. Anything can and should be criticised, but not mocked.
I quite agree, but should that mockery be legislated against?

That's where my uncomfortable feeling in this situation comes in (again, with the caveat that this is an unbinding, unenforceable piece of UN business).

No, it refers to a public denunciation.

I stand corrected.

In public? Since I don't move in Christian circles, I wouldn't hear anything that Christians are only willing to say to each other with nobody else listening.

Yeah, in public. Most everyone I know is very quick to say "That's wrong and awful."

In those Islamic countries that operate under full Sharia law, such as Iran, it still is a punishable crime: The laws that were laid down during (or only shortly after) the life-time of Mohammed are quite clear, anybody who's living in a land under Islamic rule and who doesn't belong to any of the religions that Islam classes as being "of the Book" has to choose between becoming a Muslim and the death penalty...

So are buddhists executed for being buddhists in those Islamic countries? Can you show me some examples? I'd also like to see examples of hinduists, sikhs or atheists being executed - not for apostacy, but for not being people "of the book."

You don't have to bother with the Bahá'í, as I know that they face serious persecution, but you may throw in the Druze if you have a link...

Just CRITICISM is bad juju now? ffs

*runs off to tell the Lord's Resistance Army, CIRA, ETA etc etc*

Um, you do know the ETA are Marxist-Leninists and ethnic nationalists, right? Their terrorism isn't inspired by religion.

Not at all, dear chap.


I quite agree, but should that mockery be legislated against?

That's where my uncomfortable feeling in this situation comes in (again, with the caveat that this is an unbinding, unenforceable piece of UN business).
Hmmm. Good question.

Personally, I'd say no - unless you're talking about a government/state. I don't think a government/state should be allowed to mock a religion/belief system. Individuals have that right however distasteful it may be, but governments and states should not be allowed /imo.

Um, you do know the ETA are Marxist-Leninists and ethnic nationalists, right? Their terrorism isn't inspired by religion.

So are the CIRA. I didn't say their acts had to be inspired by religion, just that they were Christians - which fits into the point of the other poster above.

Um, you do know the ETA are Marxist-Leninists and ethnic nationalists, right? Their terrorism isn't inspired by religion.

So? Do you know of any terrorist organisation that's not driven by politics? Any that's only inspired by religion?

So are buddhists executed for being buddhists in those Islamic countries? Can you show me some examples? I'd also like to see examples of hinduists, sikhs or atheists being executed - not for apostacy, but for not being people "of the book."

You don't have to bother with the Bahá'í, as I know that they face serious persecution, but you may throw in the Druze if you have a link...
Nowadays? The countries that still follow Sharia strictly don't seem to have any local Buddhist minorities anyway, so it would have to be a matter of foreign Buddhist visitors (Do you think that either Saudi Arabia or Iran get many of these?) or of locals deciding to convert... and in the latter case I think that the 'apostacy' charge would probably be given legal precedence over the 'not People of the Book' one.
The same situation re apostacy would also seem to apply with respect to atheists... but even if there haven't been many (or any?) relevant cases lately, due to a lack of non-'apostate' atheists falling into those regimes' hands, that wouldn't actually remove that "Allah-given" law from the books, would it?

The legal status of Hindus (not "hinduists", by the way...) has been a matter of dispute in Islam for quite a few centuries by now. Some of the Muslims who led invasions of India certainly classed them as 'pagans' and carried out massacres with that justification, although of course invasions back in the 8th-12th centuries AD often involved massacres anyway: However once they started invading India with a serious intention of conquest, rather than just as raiders, some of their more prgamatic leaders decided that the doctrine of all Hindu gods being aspects of 'Brahma' & the existence of the Bhavad-Gita were enough to let Hindus be classed as 'Peoples of the Book' and thus tolerable as subjects... which made long-term conquest a lot easier (and taxation a lot more profitable ;)). Modern Islam generally seems to accept the latter interpretation, as even the Taliban only persecuted the Hindu & Sikh minorities in Afghanistan (source (http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/20/world/nation-challenged-life-kabul-keeping-their-faiths-under-taliban-rule-drew-sikhs.html)) instead of trying to wipe them out, but there have been some extremists -- certainly as recently as the bloodshed involved in 'Partition' -- who have rejected it.
Sikhism was originally founded as a peaceful movement, but faced such strong persecution from hardline Muslims that it had to develop the martial traditions that it still retains in self-defence... and, again, eventually came to be (mostly) tolerated on pragmatic grounds. (Source = various history books that I've read over the years, and can't name any of right now, but this point should be easy enough to verify...)
Were you aware that Buddhism actually originated in India, and was very influential in some parts of that region before the Muslim invasions? Its areas of greatest strength are documented as having been the north-west and Bengal, i.e. the same areas that have the highest proportions of Muslims nowadays, and persecution may have been one of the reasons for its replacement by Islam although the situation is apparently far from clear.

As for the Druzes, although they did face persecution in earlier times (source, again, various history books) none of the area in which they live has been under governments that practice Sharia law strictly for a while now...

It's been widely reported in various news-sources during recent years that the Islamist government in the Sudan has cited religion as a reason for persecuting the 'animist' groups in the south of that country, although of course it's also persecuted Christians and even non-'Arab' Muslims so the question of how far religion is merely being used as an excuse in this case isn't very clear.

What if someone were to say, for instance, that "the Qur'an justifies terrorism"?

Then their cult is stripped of religious status, and real muslims high-five the jews and christians in relief. :)

So are the CIRA. I didn't say their acts had to be inspired by religion, just that they were Christians - which fits into the point of the other poster above.

I'm willing to bet most members of the ETA are agnostics or atheists.

So? Do you know of any terrorist organisation that's not driven by politics? Any that's only inspired by religion?

The LRA and Al Qaeda, for starters.

The LRA and Al Qaeda, for starters.
Both driven by politics.

I'm willing to bet most members of the ETA are agnostics or atheists.
Prove it.

The LRA and Al Qaeda, for starters.

Prove that the two above groups have no political objectives or goals, at all.