Obama signs up to stop YOUR freedom of speech at UN. Happy now?

Original Home Page

All Contents of Site – Index

Is ‘President Blair’ a shoo-in? Yes and No

“Ban Blair-Baiting” petition – please sign

“Obama introduced UN resolution to limit free speech”

Before the Obama- lovers of this country, continent and world say, “oh well, if HE agrees, it MUST be alright, think again. I mean … SERIOUSLY … think again.

With others I have been warning about this for months. See 26th March 2009 and 1st March 2009 (see details of resolution below here)

It was bound to happen when the UNHRC became mostly Islamic and when their friend Mr Obama came to office. But many chose to look the other way.

Those should take another glance. This resolution has finally been passed – last Thursday, though interestingly, there hasn’t been much or anything about it in the British press.

From Yid With Lid:

“On the last day of the UN’s Hate Israel Human Rights Council meetings it passed a  resolution crafted jointly by the U.S. and Egypt talks to importance of freedom of expression, calling it “one of the essential foundations of a democratic society” and urging countries to protect it.

`
After the “niceties” the resolution talks about “negative racial and religious stereotyping,” and condemns any advocacy of “religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.” It urges governments to “address and combat such incidents,” in line with their obligations under international law.Speaking on behalf of the European Union, French representative Jean-Baptiste Mattei said the language about stereotyping referred to the stereotyping of individuals, not religions, ideologies or abstract values. Human rights laws do not and should not protect belief systems.

But Pakistan’s Zamir Akram, speaking for the OIC, used the terms “negative stereotyping” and “defamation of religions” interchangeably, and said the phenomenon affected not only individuals but also religions and belief systems.In other words, from now on, things like those famous Mohammad Cartoons will be against international law. President Obama is trying to “give up” the First Amendment.”

And from ‘Eye on the UN’ comes this:

• You Can’t Say That (source here)

At the UN, the Obama administration backs limits on free speech.
by Anne Bayefsky
10/05/2009 12:00:00 AM

The Obama administration has marked its first foray into the UN human rights establishment by backing calls for limits on freedom of expression. The newly-minted American policy was rolled out at the latest session of the UN Human Rights Council, which ended in Geneva on Friday. American diplomats were there for the first time as full Council members and intent on making friends.

President Obama chose to join the Council despite the fact that the Organization of the Islamic Conference holds the balance of power and human rights abusers are among its lead actors, including China, Cuba, and Saudi Arabia. Islamic states quickly interpreted the president’s penchant for “engagement” as meaning fundamental rights were now up for grabs. Few would have predicted, however, that the shift would begin with America’s most treasured freedom.

For more than a decade, a UN resolution on the freedom of expression was shepherded through the Council, and the now defunct Commission on Human Rights which it replaced, by Canada. Over the years, Canada tried mightily to garner consensus on certain minimum standards, but the “reformed” Council changed the distribution of seats on the UN’s lead human rights body. In 2008, against the backdrop of the publication of images of Mohammed in a Danish newspaper, Cuba and various Islamic countries destroyed the consensus and rammed through an amendment which introduced a limit on any speech they claimed was an “abuse . . . [that] constitutes an act of racial or religious discrimination.”

The Obama administration decided that a revamped freedom of expression resolution, extracted from Canadian hands, would be an ideal emblem for its new engagement policy. So it cosponsored a resolution on the subject with none other than Egypt–a country characterized by an absence of freedom of expression.

Privately, other Western governments were taken aback and watched the weeks of negotiations with dismay as it became clear that American negotiators wanted consensus at all costs. In introducing the resolution on Thursday, October 1–adopted by consensus the following day–the ranking U.S. diplomat, Chargé d’Affaires Douglas Griffiths, crowed:

“The United States is very pleased to present this joint project with Egypt. This initiative is a manifestation of the Obama administration’s commitment to multilateral engagement throughout the United Nations and of our genuine desire to seek and build cooperation based upon mutual interest and mutual respect in pursuit of our shared common principles of tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.”

His Egyptian counterpart, Ambassador Hisham Badr, was equally pleased–for all the wrong reasons. He praised the development by telling the Council that “freedom of expression . . . has been sometimes misused,” insisting on limits consistent with the “true nature of this right” and demanding that the “the media must . . . conduct . . . itself in a professional and ethical manner.”

The new resolution, championed by the Obama administration, has a number of disturbing elements. It emphasizes that “the exercise of the right to freedom of expression carries with it special duties and responsibilities . . .” which include taking action against anything meeting the description of “negative racial and religious stereotyping.” It also purports to “recognize . . . the moral and social responsibilities of the media” and supports “the media’s elaboration of voluntary codes of professional ethical conduct” in relation to “combating racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance.”

Pakistan’s Ambassador Zamir Akram, speaking on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, made it clear that they understand the resolution and its protection against religious stereotyping as allowing free speech to be trumped by anything that defames or negatively stereotypes religion. The idea of protecting the human rights “of religions” instead of individuals is a favorite of those countries that do not protect free speech and which use religion–as defined by government–to curtail it.

Even the normally feeble European Union tried to salvage the American capitulation by expressing the hope that the resolution might be read a different way. Speaking on behalf of the EU following the resolution’s adoption, French Ambassador Jean-Baptiste Mattéi declared that “human rights law does not, and should not, protect religions or belief systems, hence the language on stereotyping only applies to stereotyping of individuals . . . and not of ideologies, religions or abstract values. The EU rejects the concept of defamation of religions.” The EU also distanced itself from the American compromise on the media, declaring that “the notion of a moral and social responsibility of the media” goes “well beyond” existing international law and “the EU cannot subscribe to this concept in such general terms.”

In 1992 when the United States ratified the main international law treaty which addresses freedom of expression, the government carefully attached reservations to ensure that the treaty could not “restrict the right of free speech and association protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States.”

The Obama administration’s debut at the Human Rights Council laid bare its very different priorities. Threatening freedom of expression is a price for engagement with the Islamic world that it is evidently prepared to pay.

Anne Bayefsky is a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, a professor at Touro College, and the editor of EYEontheUN.org.

---

ANTI-BLASPHEMY RESOLUTION>

THE ANTI- BLASPHEMY RESOLUTION was passed as non-binding but they now want to make it binding on all members. The 57 group of Islamic countries which is led by Pakistan, and is the largest blok in the UN, is pushing for it. Last December the  General Assembly passed this non-binding resolution. This year a binding resolution is expected any time from today (March 2009).

Christopher Hitchens, author of “God Is Not Great. How Religion Poisons Everything”:

“Islam describes itself as the last and final revelation from God to humanity. If you have any doubts about this idea you’re not allowed to express an opinion because you are insulting us … making us feel hurt.  A fantastic claim and a fantastic claim that you can’t challenge it … that is  totalitarianism defined … it is a rape and butchery of the US constitution. There are Muslims who are prepared to use violence at the drop of a hat … but you cannot accuse them of being violent lest you be accused of blasphemy. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights – the then soviet union and Saudi Arabia did NOT sign. Don’t let them tell me that only those who criticise them are being blasphemous.”

The UN General Assembly is considering  a binding resolution urging member states to make it a  crime to criticise Islam. It would call on governments to pass their own laws making it binding against defamation of religion. The US says the implementation of this actually fosters intolerance and justifies restrictions on human rights and fundamental freedom . Even talking about the influence of Islam on terrorism could be classed as criminal.

This UN draft resolution vote on  ‘Combating Defamation of Religions’ taken on 24th November 2008, came up with this: 85 YES, 50 NO, 42 ABSTENTIONS. Even if we weigh this so that the abstentions are classed as “No” votes, put simply that means that with a swing of just 3 votes to the YES camp from the Abstentions this vote is easily carried at the next meeting due in a few days time.

And then ALL countries belonging to the UN will be required to put such an ACT into legislation. Read the one-page pdf document from Eye On The UN Note that ALL Islamic countries voted with this, while ALL modern secular/non-Islamic/western countries voted against.  Then tell me there is no clash of cultures. Even Iraq & Afghanistan voted YES.  After, some might say, all the west has done to try to free them from a fundamentalist herd instinct.

The poll of viewers after the Lou Dobbs programme showed that 98% said the UN restriction on Freedom of Speech in the US should NOT be tolerated.

---

THE UN GENERAL ASSEMBLY VOTE (December 2008)

GENERAL ASSEMBLY
SER. NO: 6L2 63RD
IrEM z 64 ( B )
THIRD COMMITTEE
RECORDED VOTE
MEETING #46
ADOPTED

VOTE: 2

YES: 85
NO: 50
ABSTAIN: 42

SYMBoL: A/C.3 / 63 /L -22 /RF.v- t
DRAFT RESOLUTION

---

---

Tags: America concurs, Anne Bayefsky, criticising Islam to be banned, France speaks against, freedom of speech stopped, Obama, President Barack Obama sellsyour freedom fro Islamic popularity, UN, UNHRC, United Nations, Yid With Lid