Equating criticism of religion with racism
I don’t like Doudou Diene. I’ve said it before here – probably during the cartoons fuss. He’s scary, because he works for the UN.
“Islamophobia today is the most serious form of religious defamation,” Doudou Diene told the U.N. Human Rights Council…Diene, a Senegalese lawyer who was appointed as an independent U.N. expert on racism in 2002, was presenting a report on defamation of religions to the 47-member council. The report also includes sections on anti-Semitism and other forms of religious or racial persecution around the world. African and Islamic countries welcomed the assessment and called for moves to draft an international treaty that would compel states to act against any form of defamation of religion.
A report on ‘defamation’ of religion. An international treaty that would compel states to act against any form of defamation of religion. These folks are working to make it illegal – everywhere – to criticize or dispute religion.
Diene said such caricatures were evidence that “the basic principle of coexistence of different cultures and different religions, which is the lasting basis for peace, is threatened now,” adding that “freedom of expression cannot be used as a pretext or excuse for incitement to racial or religious hatred.”
See? He’s scary.
Fortunately some EU members and others also think so.
European Union members of the council and other countries cautioned against equating criticism of religion with racism. “The EU finds it problematic to reconcile the notion of defamation with the concept of discrimination,” said Goncalo Silvestre of Portugal…”In our view these two are of a different nature.” Religions in themselves do not deserve special protection under international human rights law, he said.
No indeed they do not, and not only do they not deserve special protection, they must not have special protection, because they have vast power, psychological power as well as military and state power, and they have to be wide-open to criticism and disagreement. These demands for protection are demands for the termination of secularism and freedom.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRGGGHHHHHH!!!!!
Sorry, I just can’t think of anything more cogent to add.
Just goes to show that intelligence, rationality, etc, are in no way prerequisites to a successful legal career!
:-)
Go the Portuguese!
Ok, the treaty is drafted and everyone signs it. Then watch the fun as each “religion” demands its protections – Scientology, Warren Jeffs’ Utah fundies (apparently too wacko for the mainstream Mormons),etc.
Satanism is a religion, so let Satanists demand the censorship of all anti-Satan religions such as Christianity and Islam. Then let the fun begin.
It’s creeping in, it’s creeping in. Chomskyan nightmare coming up, folks. They’re attempting to manufacture consent. People will soon believe that, hey, it’s always been an uncool, seriously bad thing to do when you, like, criticise, you know, God an’ all that stuff, yeh? You criticise stoning them unbeliever geezers, man, and you’re knocking different races. Racism’s just not done!
Oh, and look at this:
That’s from the AP report printed in the Guardian. Let’s be clear: it’s not the Guardian‘s: it reproduces PA and AP and probably Reuters stuff on its website daily in its sort of instant news update. You can tell it’s not edited by a Guardian sub because they leave it in the original style (American in this case).
That said, just look at that damned paragraph! Not only this myth of being able to “defame” religion (how the hell do you do that?) but how we’re told of the “caricatures of Muhammad provoking riots across the Islamic world last year in which dozens of people were killed” (my italics).
As I’ve said most discerningly, insightfully and astutely in these comments before, and no one has yet refuted me, Aaaaagh!
I know, I know, I know. I was going to say something yesterday about that ‘provoking’ nonsense, but then I saw it in a couple more places and realized it was just universal, and I gave up in despair.
It’s a double mistake though – it’s not just that the cartoons didn’t provoke anything, it’s also that the protests did not spontaneously erupt, they were deliberately worked up months later.
Exactly how childish of me is it to find our lawyer “friend”‘s first name entirely apposite?
I know……..
(Poor guy.)
OB,
I’m sure his salary, expense account, and position of influence help to console him…
This is not surprising, but it’s scary. One of the big political fights in the immediate future is going to be the fight to defend freedom of speech against religionists.
Russell isnt that battle all but lost? acusations of islamaphobia and racism plus the ever present threat of extreme violence in responce to so called blasphemy has all but silenced any critisism of islam, (the most obvious threat to free speech)
No the battle isn’t all but lost. It’s a struggle, but it’s not lost. There are lots of people defending freedom of speech against religionists.
I hope you are right,but it just seems that every day more and more ground is ceded in the battle,Jery has told me that you are both expecting fatwas after your new book take care.