GayandRight

My name is Fred and I am a gay conservative living in Ottawa. This blog supports limited government, the right of the State of Israel to live in peace and security, and tries to expose the threat to us all from cultural relativism, post-modernism, and radical Islam. I am also the founder of the Free Thinking Film Society in Ottawa (www.freethinkingfilms.com)

Monday, March 02, 2009

Hitchens on the UN Defamation motion...

Nobody can say quite like Hitchens...
Just to be clear, a phobia is an irrational and unconquerable fear or dislike. However, some of us can explain with relative calm and lucidity why we think "faith" is the most overrated of the virtues. (Don't be calling us "phobic" unless you want us to start whining that we have been "offended.") And this whole picture would be very much less muddied and confused if the state of Pakistan, say, did not make the absurd and many-times discredited assertion that religion can be the basis of a nationality. It is such crude amalgamations—is a Saudi or Pakistani being "profiled" because of his religion or his ethnicity?—that are responsible for any overlap between religion and race. It might also help if the Muslim hadith did not prescribe the death penalty for anyone trying to abandon Islam—one could then be surer who was a sincere believer and who was not, or (as with the veil or the chador in the case of female adherents) who was a volunteer and who was being coerced by her family.

Rather than attempt to put its own house in order or to confront such other grave questions as the mass murder of Shiite Muslims by Sunni Muslims (and vice versa), or the desecration of Muslim holy sites by Muslim gangsters, or the discrimination against Ahmadi Muslims by other Muslims, the U.N. resolution seeks to extend the whole area of denial from its existing homeland in the Islamic world into the heartland of post-Enlightenment democracy where it is still individuals who have rights, not religions. See where the language of Paragraph 10 of the resolution is taking us. Having briefly offered lip service to the rights of free expression, it goes on to say that "the exercise of these rights carries with it special duties and responsibilities and may therefore be subject to limitations as are provided for by law and are necessary for respect of the rights or reputations of others, protection of national security or of public order, public health or morals and respect for religions and beliefs." The thought buried in this awful, wooden prose is as ugly as the language in which it is expressed: Watch what you say, because our declared intention is to criminalize opinions that differ with the one true faith. Let nobody say that they have not been warned.

2 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

What I don't understand about these blasphemy laws, and hopefully someone can educate me, is how can I blaspheme if I am not a believer? If I say Allah is a pig but I don't believe in Allah then that may be offensive to a member of Islam but from my point of view I have essentially insulted a nonentity. To subsequently prosecute me would be tantamount to imposing religious beliefs on me. It would be a sign that Allah is the recognized God of the UN and that any nation that signs on to the declaration is in full agreement.

This declaration shows just how dangerous the UN has become. It's well past time that the Western democracies nipped this in the bud and disassociated themselves completely from this warren of insanity.

10:14 PM  
Blogger RavenTraveller said...

I am a Christian.

I do not like it when anyone, in the course of disagreeing with Christianity or objecting to any of its beliefs descends to ridicule, gratuitous or obscene insult and like comment.

However, free speech to be truly free must allow even that. If I want the ability to present my case without fear I must allow others to present their views, even if they are offensive.

4:29 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home