…and this is a 
Every once in a while, this administration gives me a tiny bit of hope. They've just come out against the anti-free speech activities of Islamic nations in the UN.
The Obama administration on Monday came out strongly against efforts by Islamic nations to bar the defamation of religions, saying the moves would restrict free speech.
"Some claim that the best way to protect the freedom of religion is to implement so-called anti-defamation policies that would restrict freedom of expression and the freedom of religion," Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton told reporters. "I strongly disagree."
It's a small thing, but good to see. Now they just have to make some long strides forward on a few big things (like, say, a certain war, and health care, and the economy).
Politics
Comments
Posted by: Rorschach | October 28, 2009 11:51 AM
Good on you Hillary. I was under the impression this rubbish had already been passed unanimously by the UN ?
Posted by: nigelTheBold
|
October 28, 2009 11:54 AM
That can't be!
President Obama is a Secret Muslim(tm)(r)(c)! It isn't him that's doing it, it's Hillary, the Secret Mason (patent pending). It must be.
But it goes to show he'll turn on his Secret Religion if it'll help him fulfill his dream of becoming the AntiChrist!
Posted by: daveau
|
October 28, 2009 11:56 AM
I'm not sure why religions would push for this. All religions defame themselves all the time: they make false claims, and communicate them to 3rd parties.
OTOH, good on the Obama administration, for once. Took them long enough. Didn't this come up months ago?
Posted by: Insightful Ape
|
October 28, 2009 11:56 AM
Pat Condell must have gotten to them!
Posted by: Alyson Miers
|
October 28, 2009 11:59 AM
Sanity! From people in power on behalf of my crazy-ass country! Amazing!
No one actually came out and went so far as to say, "Religions do not have rights. People have rights," but HRC and Posner, between the two of them, came pretty close.
You two keep on doing what you're doing!
Posted by: Jimmy Groove
|
October 28, 2009 12:16 PM
I am glad the administration didn't cave; I was afraid they would do it in order to try to get back into the good graces of the Muslim world. I'm glad Obama sees that such a goal is not worth sacrificing our key virtues (and indeed, such a goal is not likely anyway, at least not with the extreme portions of the Islamic world).
Posted by: Steve LaBonne
|
October 28, 2009 12:21 PM
Very good news. There were a lot of rumors that they were about to cave on this.
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
October 28, 2009 12:33 PM
Good for them. It might have had something to do with the grass-roots opposition to it, both right and left. But whatever went into the decision, it was the right one and deserves plaudits.
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/mxaa3p
Posted by: SteveF
|
October 28, 2009 12:44 PM
I'm a bit confused. Can anyone more up on this clear up some possible contradictions. Hilary's statement is good, but elsewhere in the article is this:
Posner was part of a delegation at the Human Rights Council that successfully negotiated with Egypt a compromise over another similar resolution that had aimed to condemn religion-related harassment or discrimination.
He said the administration wanted to differentiate between such harassment and defamation and would do so both in the Human Rights Council and the U.N. General Assembly.
"There are limits to free expression and there are certainly concerns about people targeting individuals because of their religious belief or their race or their ethnicity," he said.
The stuff with Egypt was described elsewhere as:
While attracting surprisingly little attention, the Obama administration supported the effort of largely Muslim nations in the U.N. Human Rights Council to recognize exceptions to free speech for any "negative racial and religious stereotyping."....
....In the resolution, the administration aligned itself with Egypt, which has long been criticized for prosecuting artists, activists and journalists for insulting Islam. For example, Egypt recently banned a journal that published respected poet Helmi Salem merely because one of his poems compared God to a villager who feeds ducks and milks cows. The Egyptian ambassador to the U.N., Hisham Badr, wasted no time in heralding the new consensus with the U.S. that "freedom of expression has been sometimes misused" and showing that the "true nature of this right" must yield government limitations.
His U.S. counterpart, Douglas Griffiths, heralded "this joint project with Egypt" and supported the resolution to achieve "tolerance and the dignity of all human beings." While not expressly endorsing blasphemy prosecutions, the administration departed from other Western allies in supporting efforts to balance free speech against the protecting of religious groups.
http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009/10/column-just-say-no-to-blasphemy-laws-.html
Are they sending out mixed signals or have I just got stuff confused?
Posted by: MikeJ | October 28, 2009 12:46 PM
I can't imagine that Bill Donahue will be happy about this.
Posted by: Lynna, OM
|
October 28, 2009 12:47 PM
If you go to whitehouse.gov, you can send email to Obama's staff lauding their efforts against the anti-blasphemy nonsense.
Posted by: DavidCOG
|
October 28, 2009 12:52 PM
> Now they just have to make some long strides forward on a few big things (like, say, a certain war, and health care, and the economy).
Without focusing on and 'fixing' climate change, there will be no end of wars - just or unjust - and no economy to provide for healthcare.
Posted by: ihedenius
|
October 28, 2009 1:05 PM
In regard to this I'd like to mention Austin Dacey. Dacey works for CFI at the UN. As such he was even present personally discussing the islamic 'defamation' initiative with Pakistan.
He has given interviews left right and center with various freethinking podcasts. Just to mention one, CFI:
http://www.podcastdirectory.com/podshows/4676722
He's on fire about this and knows what he is talking about.
Posted by: Diane G.
|
October 28, 2009 1:14 PM
Actually, the way the federal government "works," I suspect this is a huge hairy deal that took a crapload of discussion & meetings...
At least it's a very good thing.
But--if the infamy thing stays as passed, can't we complain everytime Muslims call us infidels? Hmmm, guess you can't defame atheism...Yeah, right!
In a similar note, I suppose I'm the last to learn that a couple of arrests were made in Chicago of men plotting terrorist revenge against the Danish Mohammed-cartoon printers? ( http://politiken.dk/newsinenglish/article819041.ece ) Sorry if that's already been noted here...I can't keep up.
Posted by: Valdyr | October 28, 2009 1:14 PM
I wonder when America's image will be sufficiently rebuilt to the point where it can start leaning on Middle Eastern and Asian countries to treat women and sexual minorities better. Believe it or not, there was actually a period in history where Middle Eastern countries liked and wanted to impress us (or at least do things we find pleasing so we'll give them more financial aid).
Posted by: kopd
|
October 28, 2009 1:21 PM
Without focusing on and 'fixing' climate change, there will be no end of wars...
Oh sure there will - once all the people are gone.
Posted by: WashingMachine0
|
October 28, 2009 1:23 PM
This news is just what I needed as a "pick me up". I've been wondering if they were going to say something on this subject and it's great that they did. I know it's essentially pointless, but I'm gonna send an email to the White House about this.
Posted by: Holytape
|
October 28, 2009 1:35 PM
This is no good. The Pope is for anti-defamation policies, and Obama is against them. Since the pope is the Whore of Babylon, and Obama is the anti-Christ, how am I to pick a side without agreeing with either the anti-Christ or the Whore of Babylon? And what about the children!?
Blasphemy is fun and profitable.
Posted by: Abdul Alhazred
|
October 28, 2009 1:37 PM
No no no no.
Tony Blair is the Antichrist
http://www.rr-bb.com/showthread.php?t=113657
Posted by: JJR | October 28, 2009 1:43 PM
@ SevenF (#9)
That was EXACTLY my thoughts when I heard the headline this morning...seemed like a complete 180, policy-wise. Thanks for re-posting that and rescuing it from the Memory Hole.
"We have always been at war with Eurasia...go back to sleep."
:-(
Posted by: millhouse | October 28, 2009 1:48 PM
InsightfulApe @#4, I would like to think Pat had something to do with it, even as I hope "them" would not need to be gotten to, rather, just knew what was correct and took that course. Glad of it in any event. And I do so enjoy Pat's monologues.
Posted by: Greg Laden
|
October 28, 2009 1:52 PM
He should get a Nobel Prize for this!!!!
Posted by: Alpinist
|
October 28, 2009 1:54 PM
SteveF @ #9, JJR @ #20:
Glad I'm not the only one who is confused. Earlier this week I read about Obama Administration and Egypt getting together to work out a "freedom of speech protection" resolution which seemed to contain far too broad of language, open to unfortunate interpretations.
Weekly Standard Article
The resolution itself
Posted by: Blondin
|
October 28, 2009 1:57 PM
@14
Here's another item about the Chicago plotters:
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/men-angry-cartoon-prophet-fbi/story?id=8928521
It stands to reason that endorsing anti-blasphemy legislation only encourages or emboldens the whackjobs who would use violence to enforce "respect".
Posted by: DeanFromBC | October 28, 2009 3:15 PM
Dawkins, Harris and Hitchens have all called for an end to the priveleged treatment of religion, and any kind of anti-blasphemy legislation would set that back by a century.
I will fight for my right to call out delusional, religious half-wits for their ridiculous beliefs. Under no circumstances can we cave to the same fucktards that threatened death to everyone associated with those Danish cartoons.
Posted by: Twewi | October 28, 2009 3:30 PM
I'm also confused. I thought I'd heard that the US cosponsored this bill with Egypt or something.
Posted by: kalibhakta
|
October 28, 2009 4:19 PM
if the administration is talking out of both sides of its mouth, then at least this is a better side...
Posted by: Tom Wood | October 28, 2009 4:22 PM
The real issue is that Islam is a political system masquerading as a religion. It already has complete domination over people within Islamic countries, and will kill them if they try to leave its influence. Giving it the protection of a UN resolution has nothing to do with religion and everything with trying to spread political influnce under the guise of religion.
Posted by: Knockgoats | October 28, 2009 4:34 PM
Tony Blair is the Antichrist - Abdul Alhazred
On the contrary, Prince Charles is the Antichrist!
Posted by: Joe | October 28, 2009 4:48 PM
The White House has expanded hate crimes legislation to cover sexual orientation and gender identity, started a withdrawal from Iraq, deftly defused the Iranian situation without a resort to war or the threat thereof, cut spending for unnecessary military projects, passed as large a fiscal stimulus as you could get through the Senate and negotiated a nuclear arms reduction deal with Russia, all in about ten months. They're closer to passing what amounts to universal health care than any of the five Presidents who've wanted to (Truman, LBJ, Nixon, Carter, Clinton). The hearings to repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell start next month. (Some people seem to think Obama can just overturn it - he can't, its written into the law and needs to be explicitly repealed).
And yet liberals are still cynical. Sheesh.
Posted by: Bruce | October 28, 2009 5:19 PM
Let's not forget that Australia, Canada and the US boycotted the recent Durban review on similar grounds (i.e. Islamic nations pushing for the roll-back of various rights).
Posted by: Alpinist
|
October 28, 2009 6:27 PM
Joe #30: "And yet liberals are still cynical. Sheesh. "
There's always a reason to be cynical about government. Always.
Posted by: Snoof | October 28, 2009 6:51 PM
What do you mean, "masquerading"? Most (if not all) religions are political systems. They serve to define an in-group and an out-group and establish hierarchies of dominance and exploitation. Islam's significant political power - or more accurately, the significant political power it bestows upon members of the privileged priesthood class - is hardly a new phenomenon.Posted by: ShaunOTD | October 28, 2009 6:54 PM
@ Diane G #14
Why? Infidel only means 'one without faith' - how is that more offensive than being called an atheist?
Posted by: Sphere Coupler | October 28, 2009 7:03 PM
I see what you've done there!Posted by: MudPuddles | October 28, 2009 7:52 PM
Its not just in Islamic Nations that the defamation of religions may become illegal - my own country, Ireland, passed a law barring "blaspemous libel" - in other words, since summer of 2009, anything in print or art or speech in Ireland which may be construed as blasphemy (the term "blasphemy" not being well defined in the law) can be convicted of a criminal offence.
And we wonder why the Irish are considered "stupid" by our neighbours in Europe.
Posted by: Pierce R. Butler
|
October 28, 2009 8:05 PM
Now they just have to make some long strides forward on a few big things (like, say, a certain war...
(Ahem!) More than one.
Posted by: Tom Wood | October 28, 2009 8:08 PM
Islam is one of the few remaining political systems that explicitly confers upon the clergy the divine right to rule the government. It's why separation of church and state are so important.
Posted by: Diane G. | October 29, 2009 12:37 AM
I knew I was wording that funny but pushed the post button anyway...At first I basically meant "us" as "us Americans," thereby including the Xtians...Then I realized I was 'speaking' to a bunch of atheists...so, yeah, why would it matter?...But since it wasn't even clear to me...
Point being, if in fact I ever had one, that it seems the Muslims at least pull their own weight in the defamation games...
Posted by: Cimourdain
|
October 29, 2009 6:29 AM
A good step, but a small one. The simple truth is that Islam - and let's not pretend that it isn't Islam that's going to be protected under these rules - doesn't really need transnational laws; Muslim fanatics enforce censorship freelance, while most of our gutless politicos and commentariat won't stand up to them.
Posted by: wiley | October 30, 2009 2:30 AM
For the record, I'm with PZ (and all here) on this one. All ideas (including religions) must be allowed to be criticized, even mocked. Islam is a threat to the free world, as it always has been a bigger threat to Christendom than Atheism ever will be.
Posted by: Ken | November 14, 2009 12:56 PM
WE THE PEOPLE SAY "NO!" ...However this administration does it anyway! (see Healthcare Reform)
Tens of thousands of protesters show up at the capitol several times this year and there is no mention of it in the news! I was one of them! I saw the streets of DC filled to capacity. It dwarfed the "million man march" and not one word of it was mentioned.