Skip to comments.UN chief: Free speech must be protected, unless it provokes or humiliates someone’s beliefs
Posted on 09/19/2012 10:52:24 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
Alarming, not because you or I take this stooge seriously but because lots of dopey liberals do, and not just here in the U.S. At a moment when the lefts dimmer lights are taking a second look at blasphemy laws, its repulsive that a guy charged with defending human rights would equivocate on speech. But not surprising: The Organization of the Islamic Conference has used the UN for years as a platform to push anti-blasphemy resolutions. Thats textbook Islamism, exploiting an ostensibly liberal institution to advance illiberal goals. Say what you want about Ban, but hes speaking for an awful lot of his constituents here.
Freedoms of expression should be and must be guaranteed and protected, when they are used for common justice, common purpose, Ban told a news conference.
When some people use this freedom of expression to provoke or humiliate some others values and beliefs, then this cannot be protected in such a way.
My position is that freedom of expression, while it is a fundamental right and privilege, should not be abused by such people, by such a disgraceful and shameful act, he said.
Just once, Id like someone taking this position to say clearly, I dont believe in free speech. Notice how they never do that? Even when theyre carving out huge chunks of their principles to protect the tender sensibilities of rioting barbarians, theyre always careful to say that they believe in a baseline right of free expression. Either thats cognitive dissonance at work or, somehow, they honestly cant see the contradiction. A little reality check from liberal atheist Sam Harris:
The contagion of moral cowardice [after the Mohammed movie broke into the news] followed its usual course, wherein liberal journalists and pundits began to reconsider our most basic freedoms in light of the sadomasochistic fury known as religious sensitivity among Muslims. Contributors to The New York Times and NPR spoke of the need to find a balance between free speech and freedom of religionas though the latter could possibly be infringed by a YouTube video. As predictable as Muslim bullying has become, the moral confusion of secular liberals appears to be part of the same clockwork
What exactly was in the film? Who made it? What were their motives? Was Muhammad really depicted? Was that a Quran burning, or some other book? Questions of this kind are obscene. Here is where the line must be drawn and defended without apology: We are free to burn the Quran or any other book, and to criticize Muhammad or any other human being. Let no one forget it
The freedom to think out loud on certain topics, without fear of being hounded into hiding or killed, has already been lost. And the only forces on earth that can recover it are strong, secular governments that will face down charges of blasphemy with scorn. No apologies necessary. Muslims must learn that if they make belligerent and fanatical claims upon the tolerance of free societies, they will meet the limits of that tolerance.
Emphasis mine. In other news today, our friends in Pakistan declared Friday to be a national day of protest and the Organization of the Islamic Conference is mobilizing to agree on an action plan against blasphemy. Meanwhile, in France, the satirical paper Charlie Hebdo is being protected by riot police tonight because it dared to publish new Mohammed cartoons today. And in spite of it all, the head of the UN is busy appeasing rioters by reassuring them that theres no right to insult their faith. Perfect.
These alarm bells should have been ringing ages ago. UN resolutions like this will be used to destroy everyone’s (not just Americans’) rights and freedoms from the top down.
The UN is the head of the snake, and it was not the issue it should have been during the primaries.
I’ll believe this when they start applying this to Christian beliefs.
Muhammad was a pig fellator.
It's not a snake, it's the many headed Hydra, whose heads are namely the multifarious strictures on expression in the name of gender equality, racial equality, life style equality, etc. etc. etc. "The chains of habit are too light to be felt until they are too strong to break."
The UN chief just provoked and humiliated my belief in be able to say and write what I think and believe.
Millions of people TODAY think it should be against the law to speak ill of their dear leader. They would support Rush Limbaugh being arrested and locked away somewhere.
I can’t stand Chris Mathews. But I’d never want him arrested for what he says.
It’s alleged that Obama is eager to sign onto International law that prohibits denigrating speech against Islam.
Consider this article, and consider the recent, egregious official attacks against the 1st Amendment which served as a diversion to the terrorism that went unimpeded.
This is a very, very serious issue.
It's either one or the other, it simply can't be both.
What I saw at the coup
Some of the hate radio hosts began to fan the flames with crazy rumors that really weren’t so crazy, not to us. When they were taken off the air through a variety of means (but mainly for violating the “fomenting domestic terrorism” laws), the right wing nut jobs went absolutely mad with fury. The accusations about a secret purge continued. The plan was being laid out for all to see, even while it was being officially denied at every level, and was never reported on at all by our cooperating media networks and other friendly outlets.
And then the shooting started.
If your visions come true I’ll be grateful that my age will allow me to excape by natural causes if not by the state.
Rush discussing this now with a Baltimore caller named Yehuda...
I guess the good news is when the US goes bankrupt, so does the UN.