Tumblelog by Soup.io
Newer posts are loading.
You are at the newest post.
Click here to check if anything new just came in.

November 30 2012

surveyork
04:42
On the day of the United Nations General Assembly's vote on upgrading Palestine to non-member observer status, the @UN official account sent out a tweet that seemed to undercut support for the move. The tweet was deleted soon after posting and a correction issued, but not before it received around 100 retweets, as well as comments and screenshots for the record.

October 20 2012

surveyork
23:55
Free speech is dying in the Western world. While most people still enjoy considerable freedom of expression, this right, once a near-absolute, has become less defined and less dependable for those espousing controversial social, political or religious views. The decline of free speech has come not from any single blow but rather from thousands of paper cuts of well-intentioned exceptions designed to maintain social harmony.
Reposted bypiccolina piccolina

September 30 2012

surveyork
01:28
Multiple incidents over the last twelve months have underscored the appalling lack of freedom in many countries to express even the blandest criticism of either religion in general or the dominant religion in a particular country. To name just some examples, there are the cases involving Rimsha Masih, Hamza Kashgari, Alexander Aan, Sanal Edamaruku, Hamad al-Naqi, Pussy Riot, and Alber Saber.

September 26 2012

surveyork
14:59

The current effort by a group of Islamic nations, led by Turkey, to get the UN to ban blasphemy worldwide, is a threat to civil liberties and would be a major step backwards in promoting freedom and peace on our planet. It would put normal, reasonable people who simply want to speak their minds and discuss issues, at the mercy of the most extreme elements from any corner of the planet. It would stifle any debate about the role of religion in public life.

Such a resolution would contravene the UN's own Universal Charter of Human Rights; Article 19 states the right to freedom of opinion and expression. It also is contrary to the U.S. Constitution, and could not be implemented in the U.S.A.

Anti-blasphemy laws are a favorite tool of repressive regimes, precisely because blasphemy can be anything they say it is, even after the fact. It's bad enough when they do it in their own countries. To suggest that an imam in Libya has even the vaguest suggestion of a right to control what someone in Michigan says, is an outrage and a travesty. The supporters of such laws should consider that they would also be subjecting their own rights of speech to the control of the most radical Christian elements. Advocates of censorship assume the censors will always be people like themselves. But once the ability to censor is established, the most ruthless and power-hungry people always seek to wield that authority.

Nobody has the right to not be offended. Being offended is state of mind, and nobody can predict what comment someone somewhere in the world would deem as being against their religion. Provocation is also an interior state; if someone is provoked to violence by another's words, the one who committed violence is more at fault. Passing such a resolution would legitimize violence and impair efforts to reach reasonable accommodation through debate.

Petition | United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki-moon: Don't try to curtail free speech worldwide | Change.org

September 25 2012

surveyork
20:35
Human rights are not about protecting religions; human rights are to protect humans,” she said. “Who is going to be the decision-maker on deciding what blasphemy is?”
Older posts are this way If this message doesn't go away, click anywhere on the page to continue loading posts.
Could not load more posts
Maybe Soup is currently being updated? I'll try again automatically in a few seconds...
Just a second, loading more posts...
You've reached the end.

Don't be the product, buy the product!

Schweinderl