In his column in the American newspaper USA Today, Jonathan Turley, Professor of Law at George Washington University in Washington, DC, takes grave exception to a recent action of the Obama administration in signing on to a UN effort to restrict speech critical of any religion. I share his misgivings. Most of the comments to the piece do as well.
If this was indeed an attempt to find favor on the ‘Muslim street’, it is seriously misguided. If it was the result of carelessness on the part of negotiators, then they need to be reminded of the First Amendment of the US Constitution that protects both religious freedom AND freedom of expression.
blasphemy laws
Jonathan TurleyPerhaps in an effort to rehabilitate the United States’ image in the Muslim world, the Obama administration has joined a U.N. effort to restrict religious speech. This country should never sacrifice freedom of expression on the altar of religion
Around the world, free speech is being sacrificed on the altar of religion. Whether defined as hate speech, discrimination or simple blasphemy, governments are declaring unlimited free speech as the enemy of freedom of religion. This growing movement has reached the United Nations, where religiously conservative countries received a boost in their campaign to pass an international blasphemy law. It came from the most unlikely of places: the United States.
While attracting surprisingly little attention, the Obama administration supported the effort of largely Muslim nations in the U.N. Human Rights Council to recognize exceptions to free speech for any “negative racial and religious stereotyping.” The exception was made as part of a resolution supporting free speech that passed this month, but it is the exception, not the rule that worries civil libertarians. Though the resolution was passed unanimously, European and developing countries made it clear that they remain at odds on the issue of protecting religions from criticism. It is viewed as a transparent bid to appeal to the “Muslim street” and our Arab allies, with the administration seeking greater coexistence through the curtailment of objectionable speech. Though it has no direct enforcement (and is weaker than earlier versions), it is still viewed as a victory for those who sought to juxtapose and balance the rights of speech and religion.
A ‘misused’ freedom?
In the resolution, the administration aligned itself with Egypt, which has long been criticized for prosecuting artists, activists and journalists for insulting Islam. For example, Egypt recently banned a journal that published respected poet Helmi Salem merely because one of his poems compared God to a villager who feeds ducks and milks cows. The Egyptian ambassador to the U.N., Hisham Badr, wasted no time in heralding the new consensus with the U.S. that “freedom of expression has been sometimes misused” and showing that the “true nature of this right” must yield government limitations.
…
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
October:21:2009 - 11:08
This is just the sort of thing that sets the “black helicopters” crowd alight. In the U.S. we’ve practically banned the discussion of racial, national, and ethnic characteristics in the name of political correctness; this effort, if signed into law as a treaty, will supersede the Constitution’s provisions on freedom of speech and make such limitations permanent rather than fleeting. Even if not signed into law, it will color all of America’s foreign policy initiatives; just imagine the chilling effect on U.S. diplomats!
October:21:2009 - 12:22
I find this to be a very scary and extremely dangerous slope to start down. Once people are “gagged” in such a way, it opens the doors for all sorts of possible censorship…someone doesn’t like the way someone else talks about or describes God? Does he now have a right to feel justified in taking action against that person/company/newspaper in order to correct such a slight?
When a person uses freedom of speech such as the proverbial shouting Fire! in a crowded theater when there is no such danger which could cause panic and harm that is one thing. But to judge someone else’s perception of what is blasphemous and apply it to cut off discourse is VERY dangerous and while probably used to calm some ruffled feathers, can lead to shut down of conversation and cause intimidation. Who, then, decides what is blasphemous and what isn’t? God, in whatever religion, is a Big Boy and can handle a few “blasphemous” remarks. Is it not more dangerous that we appease rather than require others of ANY faith to have a thicker skin and control their anger and outrage?
I can’t imagine that I have lived to see one of the most precious rights of the USA come under the microscope. The right to Freedom of Speech is one of the things that separates us from many of the oppressive regimes around the world.
Finally, if this was done to appeal to “Muslim Street”, does it cut both ways? Do they now have to stop the hateful rhetoric they espouse about Jews and others? Would seem only fair…
October:21:2009 - 12:42
This law only has one purpose, to prevent any criticism of a certain religion.
It is a “thou shalt not have an opinion” law that will contribute to end our freedoms, all in the name of being polite and /or not hurting a person’s feelings. Without freedom of speech you cannot have freedom of religion, equality, democracy and human rights. To end any of these one need only say that a measure belongs in the relm of religion and so it cannot be contested.
If I could not answer a critic, or defend an intellectual position, then my beliefs are weak and/or wrong and don’t deserve to be protected by some silly, evil law.
Of course, any so-called blasphemy law will be applied selectively.
kactuz
October:21:2009 - 13:07
No argument from me!
One correction though… that phrase isn’t about ‘shouting, “Fire!” in a crowded theater.’ It’s about falsely shouting ‘Fire!’ in a crowded theater. We actually like to be alerted to real dangers!
October:21:2009 - 13:09
Yes indeed! You don’t need to be a member of the ‘Black Helicopter Watch’ to see the dangers in this. ‘Slippery slope’ doesn’t begin to encompass the dangers.
October:21:2009 - 13:59
does it cut both ways?
Doesn’t Egypt have such laws already? And isn’t the result a seething mass of sectarian discord just below the surface of society, rather than discussed openly to see if matters could be resolved peaceably?
I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that this effort is part of King Abdullah’s Interfaith Dialogue as laid out at the Islamic Preparatory Conference on Religious Dialogue last year. In fact, the language the American diplomat used is quite close to that of the Conference guideline: “humans are equal in dignity and humanity”. The Conference added that this means the U.N. is tasked with the “rejection of racism and denunciation of odious claims of superiority.”
That, I think I now understand, means turning the U.N. into an instrument to promote anti-Semitism, as many Muslims tell me it is Judaism, with its foundation that Jews are the chosen people, that makes “odious claims of superiority”.
October:21:2009 - 15:07
It’s a bad idea all round. I often wish people wouldn’t say what they do- but they have the right to say it. And frankly, though I find the anti-Islam ranting distastful so are the racist/bigoted remarks some Muslims make about others. I don’t think this will pan out however. It simply is incompatible with democratic values.
October:22:2009 - 19:05
WTF??? If this is true than I have completetely lost faith in the Obama administration.
This is a total sell-out of western values!
And take back that bloody Nobel Peace prize!
If might be a good idea if Muslims themselves would stop abusing other religions and cultures first, before they go around being insulted about every little friggin’ thing they think must be an insult to them and their religion!
January:06:2010 - 13:34
The problem with this is if I say that the koran is more the writing preacher type of people than the work of Allah,, That alone makes me a blasphemer. That is not saying that some of the concepts definitely come from Allah, but like all mainstream beliefs they are definitely influenced by man. Oh well I am an old man and what do I know anyway..
Allan
January:06:2010 - 14:01
Sadly, there are many who would jump on that statement as proof of your non-Muslim status. Even granting that the Quran is the direct word of God, there is no insurance that those words were not influenced by man. The saga of the ‘Satanic Verses’ (the issue Rushdie exploited in a novel of the same name) suggests that the difficulty of distinguishing influences is not an easy one.
January:07:2010 - 04:52
actually John what that statement is saying is I am not an islamist because to be a true Muslim one must follow Allah or God of your understanding. There are many who follow Islam or Christianity that are definitely not Muslim. I am neither a follower Islam nor Christianity.
I know this goes against many clerics who violate the teachings of the Koran which leaves them the status of being non-Muslim. Being Muslim is determined by how you live your life, not the word you profress