Free Speech Alert: Something Smells Funny at the U.N.

I'm generally a supporter of the United Nations, and the concept behind it. I also understand why certain conservatives hate it so much. And I'm well aware it's not a perfect institution, understandable, considering the monumental task its purpose serves. I think if our government took it more seriously, we wouldn't be in this pickle we're in right now,and our standing in the world would be much higher than it currently is. Generally, I find most of what they do to be benign, and I'm certainly not afraid of some world government conspiracy horseshit like some wingers are. So, before you read on, know that I come from this as a liberal (if ornery)secular humanist who holds freedom of speech in the highest regard, not as some 'New World Order/black helicopters outside my window' kinda guy.

However, I came across something by science writer Ed Brayton at Dispatches from the Culture Wars that was quite disturbing. Apparently there has been a U.N Resolution proposed, for 'Combating the Defamation of Religions', voted on two years in a row, now (it's the first resolution on the page):

The Commission adopted by a roll-call vote a resolution on combating defamation of religions (E/CN.4/2004/L.5) by 29 in favour, 16 against, with 7 abstentions, by which it welcomed the report of the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism entitled “Situation of Muslim and Arab peoples in various parts of the world”; expressed deep concern at negative stereotyping of religions and manifestations of intolerance in some regions of the world; urged States to ensure equal access to education for all in law and in practice; expressed deep concern that Islam was frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism; noted with deep concern 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; and expressed deep concern at programmes and agendas pursued by extremist organizations and groups aimed at the defamation of religions, in particular when supported by governments.

The Commission also urged all States, in conformity with international human rights instruments, to take all appropriate measures to combat hatred, discrimination, intolerance, and acts of violence motivated by religious intolerance; urged all States to ensure that all public officials in the course of their official duties respected different religions and did not discriminate on grounds of religion; strongly deplored physical attacks and assaults on businesses, cultural centres and places of worship of all religions; called upon the international community to initiate a global dialogue to promote a culture of tolerance based on respect for religious diversity; called upon the High Commissioner for Human Rights to promote and include human rights aspects in the Dialogue among Civilizations; and requested the Special Rapporteur to examine the situation of Muslim and Arab peoples in various parts of the world with special reference to physical assaults and attacks against their places of worship, cultural centres, businesses and properties in the aftermath of the events of 11 September 2001 and to submit a progress report on his findings to the Commission at its sixty-first session.

Now, at first glance it seems like there are some noble aims here, for example, preventing discrimination of religion and such. And it was obviously drafted in part, to concerns from Muslim nations. The Western nations and a few others voted against it. Ironically, many of the nations in support of it have abysmal human rights and tolerance records, as Brayton points out:

All Middle Eastern states except Israel voted for the resolution? Can that be serious? We're going to ask the opinion of Saudi Arabia, where schools routinely teach that Jews and Christians are pigs worthy of death, whether we should pass a law forbidding the defamation of religion? We're going to ask nations full of people who burn down synagogues over cartoons drawn halfway around the world and who believe that someone who converts from Islam to Christianity should be put to death whether religions can be criticized? We're supposed to care what China, a nation that has all but destroyed Tibetan Buddhism and routinely locks up and tortures Christians and Muslims, thinks about our laws on religious freedom?

Now, although I don't necessarily agree with Brayton's sweeping over-generalization of Muslims (much like Sam Harris does), but he does have a point. I couldn't find Israel's name under the yeah, nay, or the abstention, so I'm unclear as to where the notion of where Israel stands on this. Last May, Dr . Robert Freeman wrote some crazy stuff in an op/ed the Jewish Times, shortly after the Danish cartoon controversy:

In order to rectify the situation, and to prevent a future crisis of this type from erupting, what is needed is a "code of conduct" for the newspapers and other media in both the Western and Muslim worlds. All governments must agree that the negative depiction of religion is "out of bounds," and penalties should be imposed on those who violate the code of conduct.

The problem, of course, is to determine the difference between legitimate criticism of someone who acts in the name of a religion, and the negative depiction of that religion.

To solve that problem, I propose the creation of an International Religious Court, composed of Christian, Muslim and Jewish clergymen with one clergyman representing each of the three religions. Anyone feeling that his or her religion was insulted could appeal to the International Religious Court for a ruling on the matter, and the court would then determine whether a penalty should be invoked. It would be the responsibility of the government on whose territory the action took place to impose the penalty.

Now, this is a touchy subject, aside from political correctness issues that some may have with it. This is one of those rare issues that many people on the left and the right are in support of, although for different reasons and different perspectives. You can easily see that in one of the links that he links to... it's a rightie whose opposition comes not only from free speech issues but equally rooted in that right-wing distaste for all things U.N. But he does make a good point:

Prohibiting the dissemination of xenophobic ideas aimed at any religion that constitute incitement to hostility — sounds like a pretty broad proposition. It would cover many atheist criticisms of religion generally; many secularist criticisms of fundamentalist Christianity (or Islam or Judaism); condemnation of religious groups that are alleged to be cults or scams; many theological criticisms of a wide range of religions; many pro-gay-rights or pro-women's-rights condemnations of religions that are seen as hostile to gays or women; and much more.

And that, regardless of where your ideological chips fall, is not a good place for us to be in. And once again it ties into that whole modern, outspoken atheist thing that Harris, Dawkins, and (rather feebly) I keep trying to get out there: why should religion be exempt from criticism? Let me be very clear: as much as I have a distaste for all things religion, I would never support any violence or discrimination in any way against any one because of their religion, any more than I would based on their race, gender, sexual orientation or other things of that nature.

But as you well know, some religious people believe some pretty crazy things, sometimes harmful, sometimes harmless, but nonetheless irritating, They are not immune from being asked to defend their claims and belief, and yes, uncivil as it may seem, they are not immune to criticism or even ridicule. It doesn't say anywhere in the Constitution about having the right not to be offended. It's a really slippery slope to slide down if something like this were to be implemented, and this is one of those instances that I think, although there are good intentions behind it, the U.N. is wrong on this one.