Marley may have been referring to a proposal to amend the mandate of the UN’s Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Speech to include that that office should “report on instances in which the abuse of the right of freedom of expression constitutes an act of racial or religious discrimination”. This has caused controversy, as a number of people have interpreted it as an Islamist power play to turn what’s supposed to be a free-speech-upholding human rights monitor into some kind of blasphemy patrol instead.
Neither in society nor in religion itself. Whose God is so weak as to be harmed by a little scoffing?
Of course not, for Christ’s sake!
Well, “hate speech” can get you some jail time in any number of western countries so it seems like one more instance of “it’s OK when we do it but not when they do it”.
IMO, there is a distinct difference between hate speech or discrimination against someone for their race, gender or sexual orientation and hate speech or discrimination against someone for their (incorrect) opinions. I hate the idea of hate speech laws at the best of times, but prosecuting hate speech against religious groups is worse than most.
Old joke:
Q: If you’re in Boston, what’s the quickest way to get to the hospital?
A: Walk up to the nearest crowd and say “To Hell with the Pope!”
This probably holds true in Dublin as well.
If any God objects, why don’t we let him take care of it?
I was thinking of this, actually. The resolution was defeated in March.
Us either. We like to think we do, but it doesn’t usually end up that way.
I for one approve of neither blasphemy laws nor laws against “hate speech”. I do not believe the United States has laws against hate speech, although there are laws against hate crimes (enhanced sentences for things that would already otherwise be illegal–like bashing someone’s head in–if they are motivated by bias against someone on account of race, religion, sexual orientation, and so on).
(I mean, honest to God, isn’t blasphemy not only a national requirement, but a national sport?)
It seems there are laws which can be interpreted to ban speech which may be sympathetic to America’s enemies. As I posted upthread a person got “6 years in prison for airing Hezbollah TV in NYC”. In my view this is less defensible than outlawing shouting “fuck god!”.
Why is there some need to defend either of them?
I am not defending any of them. I think both are wrong. Just putting things in perspective lest someone draws the conclusion that things like that only happen “in other countries”. Idiotic and unjust laws exist in any place where humans inhabit. The real difference is that we tend to see much more the idiocy and unfairness of the other guys’ laws and not our own.
Again, I am just adding some perspective. I doubt anybody here is going to support any laws against blasphemy here.
I’m Irish, and if this passes I’m going to proclaim a belief in Odin, and demand prosecution of anyone who dares doubt the existence or godhood of my Nordic overlord.
Once I’ve had all apostates of my Odinic faith persecuted, I shall switch my allegiance to Ahura Mazdao, and insist that unbelievers in my Zoroastrianism belief system get hauled before the courts immediately. Those supporting this proposal really haven’t thought it through.
Below is an article from the relevant Minister defending the proposed law :-
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2009/0501/1224245748066.html
His arguments in favour are unmitigated drivel. There are a number of clauses in the Irish Constitution that are entirely and happily ignored, including for example article 41.2 which the Supreme Court ruled should have no practical effects whatsover, and article 40.3, which the Supreme Court ruled created a constitutional right to abortion in certain cases.
And the Constitution declares that blasphemy should be criminalised, but doesn’t define what it is. I predict the proposed law’s attempt to define it will not withstand constitutional challenge.
And even if you accept his argument that the Constitition demands the criminalisation of blasphemy, why not set the maximum penalty to be a 37 cent fine, or being slapped across the cheeks with a wet herring, at the blasphemer’s choice, just to point out how ludicrous the whole concept of criminialising blasphemy is?
About time the made insults against Odin a crime!
The difference is that it may a speech crime to say all Christians/Muslims/Jews/Zeus worshippers are idiots. But it is not a speech crime to say Jesus/Muhammed/Abraham/Zeus are idiots. Ideas should never be protected. People should sometimes.
Generally those religions who consider blasphemy a crime have some sort of afterlife-type punishment. I don’t see the need to add any societal punishment on top of that - i’d say that in situations like this where the crime (and victim) relies upon a religious basis that already has a punishment, there’s really no need.
If he’s got a problem with it, he can just shoot some lightning bolts at the offenders or something. If that doesn’t happen, then what’s the problem?
In any case, all this issue is posturing just like proposing laws for prayer in school etc. They know full well the laws will not pass. In this case it does not matter whether they change the law or not because any penalty would immediately be appealed to the EU and nullified.
Which is one reason I believe in international treaties. I believe the pros of such treaties far outweigh the cons.
Sounds good, as sometimes ridicule is a good way to get rid of something. It’s a stupid idea, so it only makes sense to attach a few stupid riders to the bill along the way.
KIRA: Do Klingons have Gods?
WORF: Not any more. They were all slain by Klingon warriors a millenium ago. They were more trouble than they were worth.