Muslim countries want UN supported ban on Blasphemy

[realthinker]

An article from the AP on USA Today is describing an effort backed by Muslim countries to "protect" religious symbols and beliefs:

GENEVA (AP) — Islamic nations are mounting a campaign for an international treaty to protect religious symbols and beliefs from mockery — essentially, a ban on blasphemy.

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

Such a ban would face great resistance in Western nations that enshrine freedom of expression as a fundamental right.

The countries that form the 56-member Organization of the Islamic Conference are currently lobbying a Geneva-based U.N. committee to accept its plan, a first step for it to eventually be put before the General Assembly.

If that occurs, Muslim countries and their allies in the developing world would stand a decent chance of mustering the simple majority needed in the General Assembly to adopt such a treaty.

Questions for debate:

First, do you feel should such a treaty be enacted?


Second, what do you think would be the foreseeable impact of such a treaty on international dialogue and politics?

[VermilionUK]

First, do you feel should such a treaty be enacted?

Nope

Second, what do you think would be the foreseeable impact of such a treaty on international dialogue and politics?

It would effectively end all debate on religion. People like Hitchens and Dawkins would be practically silenced.

You have to consider why they would want to introduce such a treaty/policy - to silence those who speak out about religion. Any criticism of religion could be considered mockery - and as such it would pave the way for those of faith to force religion upon people without any public opposition.

I'd be very concerned if such a treaty were introduced.

However, I consider "mocking" of religious buildings to be rude. If someone was to, say, walk into a mosque and draw a picture of Mohammad on the wall, then I'd consider that disgracefully rude.

[T-mash]

First, do you feel should such a treaty be enacted?

Nothing should be protected from mockery, in my opinion. While we can agree as a community that mocking some certain things should not be considered decent or tolerable, making it banned goes against freedom of speech severely. As a certain "Hans Teeuwen" once said: "Anything that has any form of power should be open to be ridiculed. If that stops happening you get scary situations like dictatorship."

Second, what do you think would be the foreseeable impact of such a treaty on international dialogue and politics?

I'll try to skip this question if it's okay. I'm not really someone who is into debating international politics.

[McCulloch]

First, do you feel should such a treaty be enacted?

It would probably be a violation of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

[realthinker]

First, do you feel should such a treaty be enacted?

It would probably be a violation of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Article 18.

* Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Article 19.

* Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Indeed, it seems such a treaty may be against article 19. Article 18 though expresses the right "to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice . . ." It's easy to see how these two articles could be in opposition on occasion.


I could see one of two things happening as the result of such a treaty. The Muslim countries may start using it as a shield, hiding behind their religion when anyone criticizes their behavior. On the other hand, it may, for fear of violation of such a treaty, push religion out of political and international dialogue. Countries may pull back from countries trying to mix religion and politics, saying that until they can separate the two there's no safe way to have dialogue.

[Jayhawker Soule]

Questions for debate:

First, do you feel should such a treaty be enacted??

Of course not.

[quote="realthinker"Second, what do you think would be the foreseeable impact of such a treaty on international dialogue and politics?[/quote]
See here.

[Jayhawker Soule]

Questions for debate:

First, do you feel should such a treaty be enacted??

Of course not.

Second, what do you think would be the foreseeable impact of such a treaty on international dialogue and politics?

See here.

[East of Eden]

However, I consider "mocking" of religious buildings to be rude. If someone was to, say, walk into a mosque and draw a picture of Mohammad on the wall, then I'd consider that disgracefully rude.

That would be vandalism of someone else's property. There should be nothing wrong with publishing the same drawing of Mohammad.

[VermilionUK]

However, I consider "mocking" of religious buildings to be rude. If someone was to, say, walk into a mosque and draw a picture of Mohammad on the wall, then I'd consider that disgracefully rude.

That would be vandalism of someone else's property. There should be nothing wrong with publishing the same drawing of Mohammad.

Yes, I agree, but I said, if someone was to draw a picture of Mohammad inside the Mosque on a wall - THAT would be rude. Like you said, it would be vandalism.

[Scotracer]

I am definitely against this. It is not only a step back for humanity in terms of freedom of thought and expression, it violates my human rights too.

No thanks.