If members of the Organization of Islamic States can get an anti-blasphemy rule passed at the UN to curtail conversations about activities that some Muslims consider Shariah (female genital mutilation, stoning and child marriages), then will the rule also prevent OIC states from criticizing Israel and Israeli settlers for taking Palestinian land, since that too is said to be prescribed by religion?
Latest Updates: UN Defamation Resolution RSS
-
johnpi
-
johnpi
Asma Uddin at altMuslim may be engaging in false equivalency in this statement:
Although the UK is not a supporter of the Defamation Resolution, its use of visa controls to punish those who have expressed “extreme” views is based on the same communal theory of rights as the Resolution. The idea behind both is that individual rights – such as the right to free speech – should be curtailed for the sake of public sentiment.
Putting aside Jacqui Smith’s repulsive Reaganesque rhetoric, I don’t see a standard of ‘communal values’ or “public sentiment” being applied by the UK government, but instead a more narrow standard of violence prevention. The specific justifications cited in her article for the various individuals who have been banned concerns incitements to violence: