Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Western nations oppose proposed U.N. treaty as a limit on free speech

GENEVA - Four years after cartoons of the prophet Muhammad set off violent protests across the Muslim world, Islamic nations are mounting a campaign for an international treaty to protect religious symbols and beliefs from mockery — essentially a ban on blasphemy that would put them on a collision course with free speech laws in the West.

Documents obtained by The Associated Press show that Algeria and Pakistan have taken the lead in lobbying to eventually bring the proposal to a vote in the U.N. General Assembly.

If ratified in countries that enshrine freedom of expression as a fundamental right, such a treaty would require them to limit free speech if it risks seriously offending religious believers.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34048355/ns ... d_nations/



Funny, they don't seem to be concerned with fundamentalist terrorists disgracing Mohammed by beheading people in the name of their religion.....

And how exactly would this be enforced? A good reason why we need to get rid of the UN.

andy7171 wrote: A good reason why we need to get rid of the UN.

And bring back the League of Extraordinary Nations

Mohammed liked to screw camels.

HI54UNI wrote:Mohammed liked to screw camels.

And Jesus was more of a sheep guy.

If ratified in countries that enshrine freedom of expression as a fundamental right, such a treaty would require them to limit free speech.

one word......hypocritical

Can't enshrine freedom and then limit free speech. Funny stuff though.

So I suppose a global Muslim ban is out of the question.

Grizalltheway wrote:

HI54UNI wrote:Mohammed liked to screw camels.

And Jesus was more of a sheep guy.

You might have a point...




The accused and one of his younger victims...

Sounds like something the Christian Right would do (or at least a nationwide blasphemy ban).

Globalism sucks. Get the US out of the UN.

Appaholic wrote:...Funny, they don't seem to be concerned with fundamentalist terrorists disgracing Mohammed by beheading people in the name of their religion.....

My exact thoughts too.

What would Mohammed say about murdering apolitical, innocent, non-combatant civilians?



Can there be a more blasphemous offense?

travelinman67 wrote:

Appaholic wrote:...Funny, they don't seem to be concerned with fundamentalist terrorists disgracing Mohammed by beheading people in the name of their religion.....

My exact thoughts too.

What would Mohammed say about murdering apolitical, innocent, non-combatant civilians?



Can there be a more blasphemous offense?

Indeed. Which is why the 9/11 attacks were roundly condemned in 99% of the Muslim World, and most Islamic clerics decried them. That is why there was little opposition to our invasion of Afganistan.