defamation of religion

2
The Thusian Institute for Religious Liberty® PO Bag 59 Lady Young Road Morvant, Republic of Trinidad and Tobago www.FirstFreedomTHINK.com [email protected] (868)625-0446 Your human rights education services provider rights in order to accommodate this concept into one’s Bill of Rights. It is an outright attack upon free speech and freedom of expression since it is merely the same old anti-rights blaspheme law being pushed for a return to legal life. 3. Religious beliefs cannot and does not have need for protection by law. On the contrary the only way intelligent beings can relate to different beliefs is categorically, rational since it is ideas or concepts we are dealing with. They do not have an independent personal existence; we must examine them, judge them and criticize them if we are to adopt them into the recesses of our heart and character to influence our value system; especially when it comes to religious beliefs. Religious beliefs are most dear to us hence it is natural for us to be concerned with ensuring that they are right given the status they hold in our lives. History also testifies that millions have died in the past and continue to die because their lives have lost due to murders being committed in name of God and Religion. 4. It is time that Religious Tolerance replace religious persecution both at the state level and at the level of religious groups taking actions against those that criticize their beliefs or make efforts to convert others to their Religion. Human rights must win out if civility, equity, the rule of law and justice is to prevail in our nations and regions. Indeed Republicanism is the de facto way forward. 5. If Defamation of Religion becomes international law woe be to this world. For it will stem religious advancement and peaceful co-existence between Relig- ions and cause an increase in religious persecution and intolerance. Offen- siveness will rise instead of intelligent rational thought in religious matters. Get informed about rights and freedoms and your constitution and be sure to support Republicanism and Religious Liberty for a better country. Footnotes 1. Freedom House Factsheet: Defamation of Religions. 2. Taken from http://www.realcourage.org/2009/10/unhrc-egypt-u-s-resolution-concerns THE CURRENT DRIVE TO MAKE DEFAMATION OF RELIGIONS I NTERNATIONAL LAW This Effort is in Effect a Growing Threat to Republicanism World- wide. A Brief Response to United Nations HRC Adopted Resolution A/HRC/12/L.14/ Rev.1. that was Co-Sponsored by Egypt and United States. S HANNON BARTHOLOMEW

Upload: shannon-bartholomew

Post on 27-Mar-2016

219 views

Category:

Documents


1 download

DESCRIPTION

an explanation of the flaws in the concept of Defamation of Religion, a resolution that was sponsored by Egypt and United States in 2009.

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: defamation of religion

The Thusian Institute for Religious Liberty® PO Bag 59 Lady Young Road Morvant,

Republic of Trinidad and Tobago www.FirstFreedomTHINK.com [email protected]

(868)625-0446

Your human rights education services provider

rights in order to accommodate this concept into one’s Bill of Rights. It is an outright attack upon free speech and freedom of expression since it is merely the same old anti-rights blaspheme law being pushed for a return to legal life.

3. Religious beliefs cannot and does not have need for protection by law. On the contrary the only way intelligent beings can relate to different beliefs is categorically, rational since it is ideas or concepts we are dealing with. They do not have an independent personal existence; we must examine them, judge them and criticize them if we are to adopt them into the recesses of our heart and character to influence our value system; especially when it comes to religious beliefs. Religious beliefs are most dear to us hence it is natural for us to be concerned with ensuring that they are right given the status they hold in our lives. History also testifies that millions have died in the past and continue to die because their lives have lost due to murders being committed in name of God and Religion.

4. It is time that Religious Tolerance replace religious persecution both at the state level and at the level of religious groups taking actions against those that criticize their beliefs or make efforts to convert others to their Religion. Human rights must win out if civility, equity, the rule of law and justice is to prevail in our nations and regions. Indeed Republicanism is the de facto way forward.

5. If Defamation of Religion becomes international law woe be to this world. For it will stem religious advancement and peaceful co-existence between Relig-ions and cause an increase in religious persecution and intolerance. Offen-siveness will rise instead of intelligent rational thought in religious matters.

Get informed about rights and freedoms and your constitution and be sure to support Republicanism and Religious Liberty for a better country.

Footnotes 1. Freedom House Factsheet: Defamation of Religions. 2. Taken from http://www.realcourage.org/2009/10/unhrc-egypt-u-s-resolution-concerns

THE CURRENT DRIVE TO MAKE DEFAMATION OF

RELIGIONS INTERNATIONAL LAW

This Effort is in Effect a Growing Threat to Republicanism World-

wide.

A Brief Response to United Nations HRC Adopted Resolution A/HRC/12/L.14/

Rev.1. that was Co-Sponsored by Egypt and United States.

SHANNON BARTHOLOMEW

Page 2: defamation of religion

THE CURRENT DRIVE TO MAKE DEFAMATION OF RELIGIONS INTERNATIONAL LAW This Effort is in Effect a Growing Threat to Republicanism Worldwide

“The “defamation of religions” idea was first put forward by the Organization of the Islamic Conference as a draft resolution to the UN Commission on Human Rights in 1999. Proponents argue that Muslims are facing a proliferation in intolerance and discrimination, known as “Islamophobia,” which is demonstrated by negative portray-als of Islam that associate the religion with human rights violations and terrorism. Proponents contend that the United Nations and its member states should ban speech and actions that “defame” Islam and other religions.”1 On Friday, October 2, 2009, the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) adopted resolution A/HRC/12/L.14/Rev.1 that was co-sponsored by Egypt and the United States. This freedom of expression resolution condemned any expression considered to promote “racial and religious stereotyping. The Associated Press reported that while the resolution was “passed” (UNHRC reports it was “adopted without a vote”), that “European and developing countries made it clear that they remain at odds on the issue of protecting religions from criti-cism.” Rights group Article 19 challenged the resolution stating that “the language of ‘negative racial and religious stereotyping’ does not resolve the problems inherent in the earlier draft resolution: it is ambiguous as to what ’stereotyping’ refers to and it may be easily interpreted to encompass religions, religious ideas and religious sym-bols, none of which are not protected by international law.” Article 19’s Agnes Calla-mard stated that “The equality of all ideas and convictions before the law and the right to debate them freely is the keystone of democracy.” During the UN Human Rights Council discussions Egyptian representative Mr. Hisham Badr decries that freedom of expression has been used to promote “racial and religious stereotyping” and “incitement to racial and religious hatred.” U.S. repre-sentative Mr. Douglas M. Griffiths stated that U.S. partnership with Egypt on this resolution was to “bridge an unhelpful divide over the issue of freedom of expression in this Human Rights Council.”2 This current drive to get international law changed to render religious beliefs off-limits to criticism, Islam in particular is a dangerous threat to Republicanism world-wide, especially with the leader of the Republican world, the President of the united States of America is at the helm with Egypt co-sponsoring the resolution. If it be-comes international law and countries comply I am afraid we will see a return of Communism internationally. Indeed dark times are ahead in the not too distant future. Freedom House of Washington DC had this to say about the initiative. “The con-cept of “defamation of religions” violates the universal right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion itself by designating certain ideas as off-limits for debate and discussion by believers and non-believers alike. The term “defamation of religions” is overly vague, open to abuse, and in-consistent with traditional defamation legislation. Any idea that questions a re-

ligious tenet or offends a person’s religious sensibilities can be deemed “defamatory.” Proponents of the “defamation of religions” idea wrongly equate feeling offended with having one’s human rights violated. Certain restrictions to free speech, such as inciting violence or hatred, are legitimate under international law. However, expressing criticism or objections to an idea or belief does not constitute incitement to violence or hatred, and therefore should not be confused with a viola-tion of anyone’s human rights, regardless of whether a person finds the comments offensive. The concept of “defamation of religions” attempts to provide rights to a belief or idea rather than an individual or group of individuals, which funda-mentally contradicts the standards set by existing international law. Beliefs do not have rights. They are by their nature open to opposing views and debate. The concept of “defamation of religions” falsely equates religious belief with race. A person’s race is immutable, while religion is a belief that individuals are free to choose or change. Criticizing a race automatically infers criticism of individu-als of that race. Not so with religion. While it is a violation of human rights to dis-criminate against a person for his/her religious beliefs, it is not a violation of human rights to criticize the belief itself. While the stated goal of the resolutions in increasing respect for religious tolerance is admirable, the actual impact of enforcing a ban on “defamation of religions” has the reverse effect. Attempts to declare certain topics off-limits for discussion, debate and criticism breed greater intolerance and religious hatred and provide unnecessary and dangerous pretexts for human rights abuses.3 (emphasis original)

This entire initiative makes United Nations (UN) function like a Communistic gov-ernment seeking to grant rights (a function that belongs to the Creator alone) to a completely non-human entity, an inanimate object—beliefs systems. How absurd, as if beliefs are persons that need protection from the violation of their rights and freedoms; or somehow can be literally personified so that they (belief systems) will now have need for protection from criticism that supposedly can cause them great what—bodily harm?. Before the UN encourage the parties to practice inter-personal religious tolerance it takes onto itself a God-role to endow rights to things. The Flaws of the Concept 1. Defamation of Religion is totally contradictory. Defamation is a human relations

term. It was developed to identify an anti-rights offense that is committed against other persons; which makes it is eligible for legal action, hence it has legitimacy in law.

2. The Defamation of Religion concept cannot have legitimacy in law since it is naturally a contradiction in terms, and more so a legal contradiction. For coun-tries to give it legal legitimacy, constitutional law will have to be violated since a countries Bill of Rights provisions must be altered in violation of the peoples