The Battle of the Freedoms

Before I begin, I need to declare that I mean no offense to any religion by what I do, say, or show in this following blog post, nor do I mean to hurt those that say free speech the most sacred of the freedoms that we hold dear. This is only my opinion on the matter.

And here we go…

Bob Martens posted up an article from the Associated Press on his Twitter, and it moved me to make this post. The article itself is one that touches on something that has become a matter of contention in between Islam and the West in general, about religion and free speech. For those who are not going to click on the link, allow me to summarize: a group of Islamic nations from the Organization of the Islamic Conference are lobbying at the United Nations for an international law that will prohibit defamation of all religious symbols. They are in the very early stages of this particular piece of legislation; there is no formal proposal made to the United Nations General Assembly at this time – at least, not one that I can find online. However, the Organization of the Islamic Conference has promised it will be coming.

Earlier this year, the UN passed a resolution which combated defamation of religions all over the world. The original text, I believe it is this one, clearly outlines what it thinks about defamation of religious icons. It seems that there has been at least two other resolutions on this subject, denouncing religious defamation.

I, for one, agree that we should not defame religion. What I do have a problem with, however, is the wording.

I do not meddle much in the matters of international law too much, specifically because I try to take a standpoint of trying to see both sides of the argument, then trying to compromise a solution that is agreeable to both sides. This is probably my main detractor from getting into politics, because I do not like to take sides, and I just prefer being the one who listens to all sides of an argument and helping the two come to a middle ground. Maybe I should be a mediator…

Well, anyway, back to what I was saying. The few things I actually do not like about the text are:

• The interpretation of the resolution is left very wide open. You could open an eight-lane freeway interchange in the space it leaves for what defamation actually is. Does it cover satire? Commentary? Interpretations of religious texts that do not conform with religious norms (which is illegal in some Islamic states)?

I hear UN Resolution Highway is a great drive in the spring time.

• The mention of Islam specifically in the text of the resolution. So… according to the UN, Islam is more important than all other religions in the world? That can not possibly be misinterpreted at all. And yes, I am against the specifically anti-Semitic resolutions in the UN as well.
• This text, which has noble intentions but basically points the finger at the West:

5. Notes with deep concern the intensification of the overall campaign of defamation of religions and incitement to religious hatred in general, including the ethnic and religious profiling of Muslim minorities in the aftermath of the tragic events of 11 September 2001;

6. Recognizes that, in the context of the fight against terrorism, defamation of religions and incitement to religious hatred in general have become aggravating factors that contribute to the denial of fundamental rights and freedoms of members of target groups, as well as to their economic and social exclusion;

I really wish that people got along. I also wish that people would respond more with gentle words and not bombs or religious epitaphs. In diplomacy, we may have resolutions that make sense, but in this… I can not support any resolution that singles out a single religion or group before any others that constitutes infringing one freedom to protect another.

The title of this particular posting is “The Battle of the Freedoms”. Indeed, this is what at least the Associated Press has led me to believe what is happening: the West strictly opposes this resolution, while the non-West supports it almost unanimously. The United Nations is the battlegrounds for this, and the weapons words. The casualties may be a freedom that you hold dear, whether it is your freedom to say what you want, or the freedom you have to be protected against someone telling you that your religion is stupid. Veterans of wars past, I do not envy your position on this.

What will the outcome be?

I sit here, watching the Internet for the next salvo to be fired off.

Should I get myself one of these?

I am worried, not because I like to make fun of religions and that sort of thing – which I do not unless it is Scientology – but it is because of what this law can be mutilated in to.

If I question my own existence in a way that is offensive to the core tenet of a belief of one particular religion, will that make me a criminal in the law’s eyes?

If I am to state an opinion about a policy that a church adopts that is unfavorable, does this mean I will have people calling me a blasphemer?

If I say that I believe a prophet of one religion may be related to another, will I have people calling for my head?

I'm sure the Internet's flying tank will protect me!

I state these, because this is what does happen in some countries. I believe you can do some of the research on this particular point yourself, because there are many examples of where this does happen and will continue happening. The real question I have is… how far will certain countries go to enforce this law in other countries? In this aspect, this is both where the UN both fails and succeeds: it is the democratic way of the member nations, but fundamentally wrong to accept resolutions of this nature that are so open to interpretation.

Because I do not think either of these should be in charge of anything:

And with this… this particular piece of legislation, if it ever passes, will be what has been done.