According to various sources, the United Nations Human Rights Council passed a resolution against religious defamation.
I find this very disturbing. I’m a believer in free speech, real free speech, including negative, hateful, ignorant, blaspheming, racist, ugly speech. Limiting speech is limiting the discussion of ideas. Such discussions must be allowed, even if it offends people, or perhaps, especially if it offends people.
As a Canadian, I am unhappy that we have hate speech laws, and I really think they ought to be discarded. However it was nice to see that Canada voted against this resolution.
This U.N.H.R.C. resolution urges countries “to take resolute action to prohibit the dissemination of racist and xenophobic ideas and material aimed at any religion or its followers that constitute incitement and religious hatred, hostility, or violence.”
Is The War on Christmas religious hatred? What about a couple of Danish cartoons, The Satanic Verses or Operation Clambake? Even if something was obviously religious hatred, does that mean we should ban it? Should we ban Islamist leaders like Sheikh of Al-Azhar, Muhammad Sayyid Al-Tantawi from calling Jews “the descendants of apes and pigs.” What about The Westboro Baptist Church? (You know, the God Hates Fags people)
In the end, although some may find these beliefs hateful, ignorant and offensive, they are not dangerous. The real danger is from people and accordingly we have laws for dealing with people who cause harm to others.
As official protest to the U.N.H.R.C. resolution, I will now invent a joke that will offend many different religious groups.
Moses was eating his favourite breakfast of bacon and eggs and watching his fellow religious icons performing an orgy of sexual acts. Jesus was sodomizing the Virgin Mary while giving Muhammad a rusty trombone. Muhammad, in turn, was giving Parvati a shocker (aka, two in the bush one in the chaney). Parvati loses control of her body and urinates all over Moses’s food. Without missing a beat, he picks up a piece of toast and dips it one of the yellow pools. After taking a bite he exclaims, “I can’t believe it’s not Buddha!”
I am pretty ambivalent about this one: on the one hand, religious and racial hate speeches are so abhorent, what good can possibly be done by allowing them and discussing their content? surely that is just condoning the ideas and sending a message that that kind of thinking, that hatred, is valid and SANE. on the other hand, who are we, who is anyone to say what is right, what is GOOD and what is evil? who decides what is sane and what is insane?
i think i’d rather think about zombies, actually.
For me, it comes down to my belief that we should only ban something when it is necessary to maintain a functioning society. I don’t think that hate speech meet that criterion. Many may not like it, but our fundamental rights are not subject to the democratic process.