[Previous entry: "Military Ready to Shoot Down NKorean Missile"] [Next entry: "Anti-war British politician is banned from entering Canada"]
03/20/2009: "Criticism of religion may be criminalized as 'defamation'"
At the United Nations Council on Human Rights in Geneva, the OIC is trying again to have "defamation of religion" banned. The aim is a universal gag on free speech, blocking the right of anyone to criticise the too frequently negative effects of religion on individuals and society. The OIC has yet to appreciate that if it succeeds in its effort to protect Islam from legitimate challenges to its less attractive doctrines and practices - to say nothing of Islamism with its murderous extreme - the relentless antisemitism from its own side of the street will have to stop too.
If it succeeds in turning criticism of religion and its main beneficiaries into "defamation", we might not be free to express our condemnation of a sentence just handed down in Saudi Arabia against a 74-year-old woman, condemned to 45 lashes, three months in prison, and deportation to her native Jordan, for having two male visitors in her home who were not relatives.
The OIC dislikes the Universal Declaration of Human Rights for the very good reason that religion, not excluding their version of it, is a systematic violator of human rights, not least the rights of women - who are one half of the world, a fact the OIC does not notice, or if it does it applies religious arithmetic to solve the problem: one woman is worth half a man. The OIC is trying to change the Universal Declaration of Human Rights accordingly.
[ At present, nationalist parties such as the BNP may legally criticise Islam and not fall foul of the race laws - this new proposal would change that. As pointed out in this newspaper column, criticism of Islam would also worsen the situation for women since it would be illegal to object to religious sanctions oppressing them. Another issue is that a number of religions criticise other religions - and which is to be prosecuted in this case: the one that raised the initial criticism or the other that criticised that religion for its defamation? The whole situation is ridiculous. ]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/mar/20/islam-unitednations