Anne Bayefsky, Weekly Standard, October 5, 2009
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.
{snip}
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.
Original article
(Posted on October 7, 2009)
Comments
Who would have ever guessed that after forty years of watching French Resistance movies on the late show that I would end up living in one…. Mon Dieu!! Anyone want to help with some slogans to be Whitewashed? Uh, I mean painted by brush.
No topic, be it race or religion should be off limits from critical scrutiny. The truth of statements offered should be of more concern than whether or not they offend someone. This is just an attempt to suppress the truth about racial differences in behavior by making it illegal to point them out. The same is true for religion. The last thing these fundamentalists want is honest open dialogue about such outdated unsupported beliefs.
Nothing new here, except the willingness to openly declare his hostility to free speech. The Reds came up with campus speech codes years ago. The furor over that has died down, restricted speech is now a normal part of academic life, and the Reds are back for more.
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.
Some would say that Obama joined the Council BECAUSE Muslims hold the balance of power. So shocking that a man with three Arabic names would throw in with wanting to silence infidels.
In the 1950s, John Bricker, a U.S. Senator from Ohio, came close to getting enough Senate approval for a Constitutional amendment that would have prohibited treaties from abrogating civil liberties of Americans spelled out in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. In other words, Bricker wanted to strip away the erosion of rights through sneaky UN treaties. During those days, the other U.S. Senator from Ohio was Bob Taft. OH has sure come a long way…down. Both Taft and Bricker were opposed (even mildly so) the civil rights/integrationist agenda because of states’ rights.
A hefty document no doubt casting doubt on racial ‘stereotyping’ and onerous defamation. Unless it defames America or the West. In which case they are all for it and in fact it’s business as usual. Well, not ‘business’ as usual because business is an oppression word, but you get the idea.
“…….which include taking action against anything meeting the description of “negative racial and religious stereotyping.”
Oh, how unusual. Curbing free speech so no one might be able to tell the truth about blacks. Gee, I never would have thought the messiah would do something like that.
The only people who need protection from truthful assertions are people who are radical, extremist, religious fanatics who abuse women and little animals and who are so close-minded and nutty they will try to kill anyone who dares to debate a point that they declare taboo. Telling the truth would be very insulting to both these types of people.
Freedom of Speech is the main force that allows a society to advance. When speech is controlled or limited you not only put a stop to expressions of “bad” ideas but you also put a stop to the discusion of “good” ideas. Imagination stagnates. Society becomes frozen in time. Even discussing “bad” ideas is good because you can explain why you believe an idea is bad.
Disgusting. But how interesting that we have to get this news through a British newspaper!
Incidentally, if the ambassador from “The Islamic Republic of Pakistan” is really so concerned with the high cause of protecting the rights of religions, perhaps he should address the plight of Christians in that country; they are effectively non-persons, whose neighborhoods are denied electricity, water, etc. I imagine the same or worse is true for Hindus (if they even exist there) and for all other non-official religions in any formal “islamic republic”.
Oh, and how interesting, too, that it was the French ambassador who had to distance the EU from the new American position, fearing that the US has now gone too far in accommodating the Islamists. So this is what we have come to!
A couple of movies come to mind. The first, I need help remembering. The Bishop of Rome walks out to meet Attila the Hun to prevent the sacking of Rome. Somewhere in the scene Attila is addressed by an underling. In response Attila demands he speak the truth, “because it is the one thing that never changes.” Became an Attila fan right then. No killing the messenger for this guy!
Remember it’s not just about having the right to speak your mind, it’s about having the power and resources to repeat the ideas over and over and also to broadcast them to large numbers of listeners. It’s about giving enough money so that your leaders and talented communicators can devote themselves full time. It’s about getting ideas you support onto respected platforms like university classrooms, church sermons, congressional debates, and prestige media outlets. In the modern white movement we have a small amount of the needed power but all of us will have to pitch in to make our organizations more powerful. Find some that you like and support them. Also support publications that other whites read even if you don’t particularly find them interesting.
I wonder what Mr. Orwell would think of today’s liberals? They really are true fascists.
Freedom of speech doesn’t protect the opinions you agree with, it protects the opinions you hate.
“Freedom of Speech is the main force that allows a society to advance.” — Istvan
Exactly. Freedom of speech means freedom of thought. Without freedom of thought, you cannot have cultural or scientific advancement, only stagnation. And that is what Islamic societies have done for the past thousand years. They’ve stagnated.
After the initial surge that they gained from the non-Arab Greco-Roman countries (and others) which they conquered, they slowed down and have accomplished nothing since. Same with the Persians, same with the Turks: an initial surge, then stagnation. They often wonder what is the cause of this thousand-year stagnation, usually blaming it on the influence of outsiders; but they are unable to consider that the real flaw lies within themselves. They are wearing mental blinders which prevent them from thinking objectively.
This is another example of our current administration’s socialist attitude and agenda. Prioritizing the freedom of groups and organizations over the freedoms of the individual is the socialists method of controlling it’s people.
However, America’s Constitution is founded upon individual freedoms, something the current US Government, as well as other communist and socialist regimes, know little about.
What a sad day for America!
Réfléchissons … we’ve heard these euphemisms before in previous dictatorships …
“the exercise of the right to freedom of expression carries with it special duties and responsibilities …”
“recognize … the moral and social responsibilities of the media”
“bla bla intolerance” says our 1984 Ministry of Love
Hurrah! Just gotta love this brave new world.
As a European / German I have always hoped that at least in the USA the fundamental rights would be save. Over here one has to learn to steer around the cliffs of illegal thoughts, statements, ideas, … .
The EU officials mostly dislike or hate religion in general – I guess that’s why they opposed.
I am seriously shocked to see that illiberal, totalitarian behemoth the EU respecting basic human rights more than the USA.
So does this mean that the US is now officially to the left of France ?
And at the United Nations , yet?
It is mind-boggling the amount of secret, underhanded socialist policies slipped through by this subversive illusionist and his administration. Their actions are buried under layers of protective watchdogs, making sure the American public doesn’t get a whiff of what’s truly happening to them. And that American public is too lazy, too self-absorbed to trouble themselves into digging for the truth. It’s a combination that, if continued, will spell the demise of most white Americans’ comfortable little cocoons.
Lol, I fail to see how limiting free speech would make ANY impact whatsoever, at least on the current population we have today. The baby-boomers are so petrified that they would probably prefer to have a limb cut-off than to say anything even remotely ‘politically incorrect.’ And their offspring are, unsurprisingly, even more sheep-like in this regard. What difference would it make, since ‘white’ people certainly aren’t using their freedom of speech very effectively as it is? What would be the difference?
About 7 years ago an article of mine on the EU and its attempts to destroy free speech was published (‘Race Legislation in the European Union’). I cite the abstract: “This article examines three pieces of European Union race legislation: the Joint Action (1996) which advocates a whole range of criminal offences based on racism; the European Union’s Race Directive (2000) which imposes new legal burdens on whites while at the same time weakening the burden of proof for plaintiffs (mostly non-whites) in disputes involving race and ethnicity; and the proposal for a Council Framework Decision (CFD) to combat racism and xenophobia which was published in November 2001. The cumulative effect of this legislation, argues the author of this article, is to criminalise opposition to Europe’s experiment with multiculturalism.”
Historama, you should try living in the U.K., where you really will be sacked for ‘thinking the wrong thoughts’, or even put in prison.
I can’t believe that the BNP is so successful here, when the U.S. hasn’t got a single political party that represents the white majority, which is making any political headway.
Only tyrants try to remove your freedom of speech.
Say that to everybody who tries to silence you for disagreeing with them. Post it up all over your country. One day we will ALL get our freedom of speech back from these tyrants.
Dr Ellis, could you please provide the url for the prescient article to which you referred?
Hmm, let me see if I understand this correctly. In america, it is still legal to use racial slurs and discuss racial differences. In many (most?) european countries, this is against the law. In america, there isn’t really any race-realist political party per se. On the other hand, these parties not only exist in european countries, but are actually starting to win elections.
Could it be that hate speech laws do not have the slightest bit of intended effect? And in fact, may even accomplish exactly the opposite, by repressing opinions and making race-talk an alluring forbidden fruit?
Be careful what you wish for, egalitarians. You may just get it*.
*(see also: drafting 18-25 year olds into a civilian service corps. Nothing will create a nation full of radical race-realists faster than taking kids out of their gated communities and having them pick up trash and teach classes in the inner cities.)
“I can’t believe that the BNP is so successful here [in Britain], when the U.S. hasn’t got a single political party that represents the white majority, which is making any political headway.”
Some deluded whites (in fact, many) seem to assume that the Republican Party fills this role, despite all their disappointments and the many proofs to the contrary.
Still, like a rejected suitor who won’t go away, they continue to hope against hope, refusing to recognize that BOTH major parties despise them and want nothing to do with them.
No wonder Obama bowed down before the Saudi king.
No wonder Americans are buying more and more guns.
Both Houses of Congress should pass a resolution condemning the Obama regime’s blatant support of this curtailment of freedom of speech.
You lie, Obama! Rep. Wilson is right.
Alright, all you dissidents, get ready for the re-education camps.
How can we progress as a country without the right to free speech? Silencing free speech silences innovation and the opportunity to right what is wrong. It limits and then persecutes those that would bring positive change. It is insanity to limit free speech. God gives us the right to an opinion but Obama won’t. Incredible. Unacceptable.
The more laws the more dependent the citizen. Endless crutches alibi’s safeguards and safety nets indeed make for a codependency on government, shattering the original idea of land of the free and home of the brave. People in a free nation should have the right to form opinions based on what they deem correct and to speek accordingly. Individuality has always been the underpinning of western culture,… nothing has been above the scrutiny of Reason for long… and this has been what allowed for the progress that has attracted the rest of the world to our doors ever seeking entrance. The freedom of religion, association,speech and the right to back them up with individually owned firearms is good enough for me. Sacred/scared cows need not apply*
“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.”
Strange and distorted language. We do not “tolerate” a multitude of things people might say or do, based either from the pre-PC concepts of right and wrong, or the current set of PC “morals”. We mostly (all but the loony Left, Muslims and psychopaths) do not dignify terrorists, criminals, etc., either.
Such action is only to be expected from BHO. The truly most infuriating anti-American behaviour however is that of the neoconned supposed ‘conservative’ areas of the net where such speech codes are already in effect. The board connected to Sean Hannity being a prime example.
Folks it is the neocons who controlled our last Traitor in Chief who set the stage for BHO. Unless the American People can be awakened to the anti-constitutionionalist treason that has an iron grip on both factions of the Unity Party and then prompted to take action the sun has truly set on America.
The left has long proven itself to be an enemy of free speech. (It thinks that free speech only applies to pornography, not to actual dissenting ideas.) Obama is the most leftist man ever to become President, so his actions do not surprise me at all.
A vaguely worded doubletalk UN resolution regarding freedom of speech, which both the US and the Organization of the Islamic Conference apparently agree is over protection against religious stereotyping, and as allowing free speech to be trumped by anything that defames or negatively stereotypes religion, seems to indicate the US government is getting further and further out of touch with America. It is also very hypocritical coming from any Islamic organization, since their whole system of religion is one based on negatively stereotyping other religions and either exterminating them or making them seocnd class citizans or slaves. Perhaps it is also agreed upon that resolution is also understood to be enforced only in non-Muslim countries. It would truly surprise me if it had any other interpretation. No
The $PLC is in the same boat with anti-free speech laws in europe.
