Comment on this entry
The idiocy of “defamation of religion”
Anti-liberal actors in the international arena, such as the Muslim states of the Middle East, are pursuing a path of attempting to suppress what they call “defamation of religion”. Their campaign is achieving some success, and I believe we must take it very seriously.
...
Complete entry
COMMENTS
Posted by Joel B on 02/18 at 02:50 PM
EXCELLENT analysis! In light of recent developments at the UN, specifically within the so-called "human rights" commission, Mr Blackford's reasoning should be given a hearing at that body.
Posted by J Earl on 02/18 at 07:07 PM
Well put.
"Defamation of religion" is nothing more the blasphemy in "newspeak". While the concept or rather the enforcement of blasphemy has pretty much died down in the church and no longer represents a physical threat to anyone, but it has reared it's ugly head in izlam. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the death penalty for blasphemy only exists today in izlam. Sooner or later if we choose to become free again, then izlam must be destroyed right down to the roots or it will continue until we are all subjugated to it's tender mercies.
Posted by Rick Brouwer on 02/20 at 05:54 PM
Great article.
I am a thouroughly devoted Christian, but am chilled by the way free debate is being stiffled. Usually in favour of Islamic Fundamentalists. Christians throughout the world are in favour of retaining freedoms of speech, and encourage debate. A forced religion is no religion but totalitarianism.
BTW, The UN is not an elected body, like our own government, so why are we laible to follow its rulings? In many ways it acts more like an enforceable religious ideology if you really look at it closely.
Posted by Joe on 02/20 at 08:26 PM
It is to be hoped that Mr. Russell Blackford may meet and influence the dangerous attitude of Rev. Gary Bauma who has been in the Sociology Dep't of Monash University and who is involved in developing a Charter of Rights which will include a clamp-down on freedom of speech and criticism of religions. Any religionist is acceptable in Australia except any that are required by their religion to kill those of us who don't accept their religion. How can such a religion be exposed if there is no freedom of speech ?
Posted by Ben on 02/27 at 09:16 PM
Joe is correct. He has explained why I reject the recent General Assembly, Human Rights Council & proposed Durban II resolutions.
I am pleased to see the legal & philosophical merits so well argued.
Posted by Christian on 07/09 at 09:16 AM
A really good legal analysis - it's just a shame that such a ridiculous concept as "defamation of religion" has to warrant so much time and attention from intelligent people. It honestly feels as if the world has gone mad, with countries such as Pakistan and Nigeria lecturing western societies about "human rights" and "freedoms" . It's a bit like being lectured on the rights of women by Jack the Ripper.
What the UN and these countries don't seem to get is that human rights FOR HUMAN INDIVIDUALS are naturally occurring and present from birth. This concept is what separates civilized countries from totalitarian states. Human rights are not subject to UN fiat or anyone else's, these treaties are merely the acceptance in principle of this concept.
Banning criticism of any belief system is a one way street to totalitarianism, it would be impossible to have a democracy if none of the controversial philosophical issues (which is after all what politics is all about) can be discussed, or beliefs challenged. Human rights law has now been turned in on itself by it's enemies in a way that has made it the antithesis of it's intention (much like the teachings of the Prophets funnily enough) still I suppose this is always the way hypocritical bigots.
Shame on all the countries who voted for this dark age motion.
Page 1 of 1 pages
Add your comment here:
| 
IEET Blog