A U.N Threat to U.S. Free Speech - denouncing any "negative religious stereotyping"

Flamed Diving

Regarding the Nov. 12 letter from Assistant Secretary of State P.J. Crowley ("U.S. Defends Freedom of Expression") defending the sponsorship by the U.S., together with Egypt, of a resolution in the U.N. Human Rights Council denouncing any "negative religious stereotyping" that constitutes "incitement to discrimination":

Mr. Crowley's letter ignores the dangers to free expression inherent in any such resolution. It is perfectly true, as Mr. Crowley observes, that the U.S. continues to oppose any resolution (and the U.N. has already adopted many of them) seeking to impose direct legal sanctions against what has been referred to as "defamation of religion." Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has spoken out unequivocally against such efforts and the Obama administration has already cast the first of what is likely to be many votes against such efforts.

The problem is that the resolution the U.S. supported can too easily be used to justify the very attempts at speech suppression that we otherwise opposed. The resolution is studiously ambiguous, a trait that sometimes serves the international community but disserves all in the area of free speech. Everything about the resolution is hazy. We cannot know what negative "religious stereotyping" will be construed as meaning. Would it include, as Stuart Taylor has asked, statements that "the world's most dangerous terrorists are Islamists?" Will it be read to include much of the recent discussions in the press about the religious fanaticism of Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan? Nor can we know what "incitement to discrimination" will be understood to mean or whether either of the two examples I have just cited would or could be read to meet that standard.

What we do know is that the many nations in the world that still treat blasphemy as a crime, mostly states that treat Islam as a state religion, will hardly shy away from treating banned books such as Salman Rushdie's "The Satanic Verses" as the most threatening of incitements.

Most threatening of all, what will the language be treated as meaning that "urges States to take effective measures, consistent with their obligations under international human-rights law, to address and combat" negative religious sterotyping and advocacy of "religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination"? Whatever international human-rights law may be understood to require (and the recent Goldstone Report provides little comfort in that respect), it certainly is not the same or even close to the far more permissive and protective First Amendment.

So the question is this: Has the U.S. government really signed on to a resolution that may plausibly be read to urge or even to seek to require our own nation to substitute international norms that permit the suppression of speech for our own?

Floyd Abrams

New York

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704204304574544242277351638.html

Yay.

Victor

You need to distinguish between freedom of speech and incitement. Incitement is an act and neither protected in Ireland nor the USA.

robindch

Flamed Diving wrote: »

A U.N Threat to U.S. Free Speech - denouncing any "negative religious stereotyping"

For the last number of years, islamic countries have had a certain degree of success in passing UN resolutions which condemn, in one way or another, criticism of their religion. While none of these resolutions carry any legal weight, it does mark an interesting turn in the direction of legalism and the language of human rights, two things which have had centuries of precedence here in the west, but little or none in the east.

The problem with providing legal remedies against "negative religious stereotyping" is that religious outrage then becomes incentivized. The best way for people to deal with offensive ideas is to learn to ignore them instead of allowing themselves to become combustible fodder for the professional shit-stirrers who tell people what to be offended by (and helpfully, acquire political standing and power by doing so). However, I'm not sure that politics has evolved that far in many countries yet.

Either way, this is what needs to be avoided:

robindch

Flamed Diving wrote: »

A U.N Threat to U.S. Free Speech - denouncing any "negative religious stereotyping"

From a letter emailed to the IT a short while ago:

====================

On 23rd of October, Pakistan, speaking to the Human Rights Council of the United Nations on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (which, amongst other things, represents the religious interests of 57 Islamic countries at the United Nations), declared that national governments should prohibit by law, the uttering of matters which are "grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion".

The wording of this submission, directly intended to restrict the basic right to free speech, is a direct quote from the Blasphemy provision within Section 36.2(a) of our own Defamation Act, enacted in July this year. The OIC's submission to the UN did not, for what little it's worth, include the additional condition from the Irish legislation which requires that it be proven that the speaker intends to cause such outrage.

It's bad enough that a representative democracy enacts legislation which restricts free speech and incentivizes religious outrage. It's immeasurably worse that we provide a guiding light for religious supremacists elsewhere in the world.

====================

The Pakistani submission can be seen on page 11 of this document, while the original text is found on page 26 of our Defamation Act.

Flamed Diving

And someone asked why this forum is placed here?