UN attack on the United States First Amendment!

[SUBMAN1]

We need to start vetoing everything from the UN until it gets its act in order!!! :timeout::timeout::timeout:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ekrE4bJywC8

-S

[A Very Super Market]

This sounds like a stupid idea.

Forcing people not to discriminate does not solve any problems whatsoever.

Political correctness is really a bite in the arse...

[Max2147]

Meh. The UN is all bark and no bite. When was the last time the US changed policy because of a UN resolution?

[Aramike]

Meh. The UN is all bark and no bite. When was the last time the US changed policy because of a UN resolution?Agreed. Why we keep paying for this international abomination who's sole purpose is allowing uninspiring politicians to feel important, is beyond me...

[joegrundman]

Meh. The UN is all bark and no bite. When was the last time the US changed policy because of a UN resolution?Agreed. Why we keep paying for this international abomination who's sole purpose is allowing uninspiring politicians to feel important, is beyond me...

that's all it does, is it?

[Aramike]

Meh. The UN is all bark and no bite. When was the last time the US changed policy because of a UN resolution?Agreed. Why we keep paying for this international abomination who's sole purpose is allowing uninspiring politicians to feel important, is beyond me...

that's all it does, is it?Umm, yeah, pretty much.

[Tribesman]

That was entertaining , nice to see that Hitchens is bad on the juice again .

[Jimbuna]

I'd be interested in knowing how much it costs the American tax payer annually.....a tidy sum I should imagine :hmmm:

[Tchocky]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_United_Nations#The_U.S._arre ars_issue

[baggygreen]

Meh. The UN is all bark and no bite. When was the last time the US changed policy because of a UN resolution?Agreed. Why we keep paying for this international abomination who's sole purpose is allowing uninspiring politicians to feel important, is beyond me...
that's all it does, is it?Umm, yeah, pretty much.I have to agree here.

Well, okay, to be fair, they do sit there for stupidly long times, listening to criminally long and dull speeches. and lets not forget their passing of resolutions without the means nor the willpower to implement them...

[Tribesman]

Wow tchocky , does that mean peopel havn't been paying their dues ?:rotfl:

This topic just gets funnier and funnier , but anyway back to the opening piece .
Whats this rubbish in that report about it being made a binding resolution ?
Has the United States laws on discrimination suddenly become in internal matter for the UN ?
Even funnier .We need to start vetoing everything from the UN until it gets its act in order!!!
In case it had escaped your notice this is the general assembly not the security council . But hey if you want to follow the example set by Stalinist Russia then feel free to veto everything you can

[antikristuseke]

This is one of the stupidest things ever to come out of the UN and that must have taken a lot of effort.

[Skybird]

By headline and people's reaction, I assume this is about the attempt of the Islamic block in the UN to criminalise criticism of Islam and non-compliance with it'S demands. Well, this is old news, this operation by the Islamic nations is running for several years, and unfortunately it finds many brainamputated diplomats in Europe finding it chic to support this in the name of their misled conceptions of tolerance being rejection of realities and appeasing those who do not tolerate us.

The UN's greatest powerblock is that of the Islamic nations, no other alliance of nations there yells as loud and tries as determined to take the Un completely over. The Human Rights Council they already have taken over, and even changed the symbology of it's emblem into a variation of Islamic symbols, not to mention their underhanded efforts to push Islam under the guise of "human rights".

To form critical opinions on things, issues, and religions, is a basic freedom we should not allow to be criminalised, especially and before anything else in the case of something like religions, which is the most stupid and primitive reason to destroy freedom of speech. The EU also tries exactly this, to ban criticism of Islam in the EU, which is strange, since historically Europe has only been Islamic in those areas where Islam attacked, temporarily conquered and occupied it.

If freedom of speech officially gets banned, then I proclaim the freedom of deed, and the right to express criticism of Islam by committing according deeds against it. Because the freedom to express criticism of Islam and to reject it, is totally unnegotiable and abandoning it shall never, never be taken into account, not even for a single second.

And before somebody gets the idea of putting poor Islam into relation again: it has been the Islamic nations pushing this agenda at the UN, since long time. Not the Christian nations. Not the Jewish state. Not the Buddhist and Hindu nations. It has been Islam. And islamic people do not hinder their governments to do it, nor do they protest against it. Not there, and not here in our home countries. Many of them feel just fine to let it happen, to support it, under the label of "tolerating foreign culture".

Strange, but if this is what the topic is about, then for once I agree with Subman if he has staged any attack on this troubling misdevelopement.

Amongst other factors, tolerance is a thing of reciprocity, and if Islam does not tolerate others (which is the case), than it does not deserve to be tolerated by others in return, and has not claim to make demanding this. I assume many non-Islamic nations will support this islamic attack at the UN - if for no other reason than to weaken and do damage to the West.

Ten years ago I would not have thought it possible that my opinions of the UN would detoriate so dramatically one day. But it has not gone different with my once-given enthusiams for the EU as well. Today I am willing to accept even force and violance if only this acchieves that we get rid of both. They both spell desaster. this madness has to be stopped - the costs of letting this running on, is far to high.

"Universal human rights exist - whether religion recognises them or not." (Hitchens)

[Tribesman]

By headline and people's reaction, I assume this is about the attempt of the Islamic block in the UN to criminalise criticism of Islam and non-compliance with it'S demands.
Thats strange , I could have sworn that less than a quarter of the committee were Muslims .
Whats even stranger is the complete absence of criminalising criticism or any mention of criminalising non compliance with demands .
Have you been at Christopher Hitchens drinks cabinet Skybird?

[Skybird]

By your logic, if I kick your butt and do not tell you in words that I have kicked your butt - then according to you I have not kicked your butt.

That's what I call a compliant victim. [-"Kick"-]


-----

Got a mail asking me why I quote Hitchens from a movie Subman has set up, when I say I have not read his post and thus could not have seen a movie link by him. Well, I haven't. The quote like I give it has been used several times by Hitchens. It's a standing phrase (running phrase?) by him.

[Tribesman]

By your logic
Do you understand logic ?
Apparently not .

if I kick your butt and do not tell you in words that I have kicked your butt - then according to you I have not kicked your butt.

Are you OK ? you seem to be having mental problems .

when I say I have not read his post and thus could not have seen a movie link by him.
Thats logic for ya , commenting on a topic where you don't read what others have posted .
Go on skybird be a devil , click on the opening link and see what rubbish is being spouted .

[SteamWake]

This is one of the stupidest things ever to come out of the UN and that must have taken a lot of effort.

Epic one might say.

[Respenus]

I listened for 4 minutes, and then I got sick from the newscaster openly attacking the UN like it was nothing more that a group of thugs wanting to rob him from a dark back alley.

We all have to understand that Europeans and consequently the USA have already fought a war based on religion (oversimplification, yet it will suffice for now). Does the Thirty Year's War sound familiar to anyone?

While I won't argue the fact that I cherish and respect my right to free speech, it should not and I have never done this, attack a member of a society due to his religious beliefs. If he attacks me, I try to stand down, as religious fanatics usually don't respond well to reason. We had the Reformation and the counter-Reformation and much bloods has been spilt over the question of religious tolerance and intolerance. As far as you are polite, you should be able to speak your mind about your or another religion. Yet as soon as someone tells me I cannot state my opinion (which I do not see in the UN resolution), I fight back as a mad-man (not literally).

Frankly, I see in this video just another overreaction by the Americans. "They want to take your guns! Shoot them! They want to ban free speech! Turn the UN building into rubble!" and so on and so forth.

[Jimbuna]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_and_the_United_Nations#The_U.S._arre ars_issue

Cheers...I learned something today :up:

[TDK1044]

The UN has been a corrupt waste of space for many years. Nobody in the US and few people in Europe take it seriously on any level. We should really take back our prime real estate in Manhattan, and send these morons to Brussels where they can whine and be totally ineffective in a more fitting environment. :)

[Tribesman]

Yet as soon as someone tells me I cannot state my opinion (which I do not see in the UN resolution),
You noticed that little detail then . makes you wonder what all the complaining is about doesn't it .
In fact when you watch the opening video it makes you wonder how so many muppets got airtime in that broadcast .

[Max2147]

The UN has its uses, you just can't expect too much from it.

It's useful as an international forum to promote communication and prevent misunderstandings. In the UN countries can talk to each other quickly and publicly air their grievances.

The idea for an international body came out of August 1914, when a lack of communication and a slew of misunderstandings caused a World War. The events of that month probably wouldn't have happened if something like the UN existed and had been used properly at the time.

In 1962 the UN helped save the world during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Without the UN the US wouldn't have been able to prove its case against the Soviets in such a clear and dramatic way ("Don't wait for the translation!"). The UN itself didn't really do anything, but its mere existence as a forum and court of world opinion (to use Stevenson's words) were vital to the peaceful resolution of a crisis that could have annihilated the world.

Now in terms of resolutions and statements on how the world should be run, the UN is basically ineffective. But they're also powerless, so it's not really a problem.

Basically every major country follows the same policy with regards to the UN: They love the UN when its useful to them, and ignore it when it opposes them. In a strange way it sort of works.

[UnderseaLcpl]

In 1962 the UN helped save the world during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Without the UN the US wouldn't have been able to prove its case against the Soviets in such a clear and dramatic way ("Don't wait for the translation!"). The UN itself didn't really do anything, but its mere existence as a forum and court of world opinion (to use Stevenson's words) were vital to the peaceful resolution of a crisis that could have annihilated the world.


How quickly we forget that the whole reason we had a Cuban missile crisis is because JFK put missiles in Turkey(and the Bay of Pigs incident, of course)

The U.S. foreign policy platform should be non-interventionism, and that includes staying the hell out of organizations like the U.N.

[Skybird]

Three our four years ago I would have started a fight over your wish, Lance. Today - I would hope that Germany and Europe would follow that move. No chance, of course. We tolerate ourselves to death, I fear.

It's astounding
Time is fleeting
Madness takes it's toll
:shucks:

[fatty]

Before anyone else confuses Lou Dobbs with a primary source or expert on the U.N., I present the offending document (http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N07/473/01/PDF/N0747301.pdf?OpenElement) in question.

1. Takes note of the report of the Secretary-General5 and the conclusions
contained therein;

2. Expresses its deep concern about the negative stereotyping of religions
and manifestations of intolerance and discrimination in matters of religion or belief
still in evidence in the world;

3. Strongly deplores physical attacks and assaults on businesses, cultural
centres and places of worship of all religions as well as targeting of religious
symbols;

4. Expresses its deep concern about programmes and agendas pursued by
extremist organizations and groups aimed at the defamation of religions and
incitement to religious hatred, in particular when condoned by Governments;

5. Also expresses its deep concern that Islam is frequently and wrongly
associated with human rights violations and terrorism;

6. Notes with deep concern the intensification of the campaign of
defamation of religions and the ethnic and religious profiling of Muslim minorities
in the aftermath of the tragic events of 11 September 2001;

7. Recognizes that, in the context of the fight against terrorism and the
reaction to counter-terrorism measures, defamation of religions and incitement to
religious hatred becomes an aggravating factor that contributes to the denial of
fundamental rights and freedoms of members of target groups, as well as their
economic and social exclusion;

8. Deplores the use of the print, audio-visual and electronic media,
including the Internet, and any other means to incite acts of violence, xenophobia or
related intolerance and discrimination against Islam or any other religion, as well as
targeting of religious symbols;

9. Stresses the need to effectively combat defamation of all religions and
incitement to religious hatred, against Islam and Muslims in particular;

10. Emphasizes that everyone has the right to hold opinions without
interference and the right to freedom of expression, and 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;

11. Urges States to take action to prohibit the advocacy of national, racial or
religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence;

12. Also urges States to provide, within their respective legal and
constitutional systems, adequate protection against acts of hatred, discrimination,
intimidation and coercion resulting from defamation of religions, to take all possible
measures to promote tolerance and respect for all religions and beliefs and the
understanding of their value systems and to complement legal systems with
intellectual and moral strategies to combat religious hatred and intolerance;

13. Urges all States to ensure that all public officials, including members of
law enforcement bodies, the military, civil servants and educators, in the course of
their official duties, respect people regardless of their different religions and beliefs
and do not discriminate against persons on the grounds of their religion or belief,
and that any necessary and appropriate education or training is provided;

14. Underscores the need to combat defamation of religions and incitement
to religious hatred by strategizing and harmonizing actions at the local, national,
regional and international levels through education and awareness-raising;

15. Urges States to ensure equal access to education for all, in law and in
practice, including access to free primary education for all children, both girls and
boys, and access for adults to lifelong learning and education based on respect for
human rights, diversity and tolerance, without discrimination of any kind, and to
refrain from any legal or other measures leading to racial segregation in access to
schooling;

16. Calls upon the international community to foster a global dialogue to
promote a culture of tolerance and peace based on respect for human rights and
diversity of religion and belief, and urges States, non-governmental organizations,
religious bodies and the print and electronic media to support and participate in such
a dialogue;

17. Affirms that the Human Rights Council shall promote universal respect
for all religious and cultural values and address instances of intolerance,
discrimination and incitement of hatred against members of any community or
adherents of any religion;

18. Takes note of the efforts of the United Nations High Commissioner for
Human Rights to promote and include human rights aspects in educational
programmes, particularly the World Programme for Human Rights Education
proclaimed by the General Assembly on 10 December 2004, 6 and calls upon the
High Commissioner:
(a) To continue those efforts, focusing on the contributions of cultures, as
well as religious and cultural diversity;
(b) To collaborate with other relevant international organizations in holding
joint conferences designed to encourage the dialogue among civilizations and
promote understanding of the universality of human rights and their implementation
at various levels, in particular the Office of the United Nations High Representative
for the Alliance of Civilizations and the unit within the Secretariat mandated to
interact with various entities within the United Nations system and coordinate their
contribution to the intergovernmental process;

19. Requests the Secretary-General to submit a report on the implementation
of the present resolution, including on the possible correlation between defamation
of religions and the upsurge in incitement, intolerance and hatred in many parts of
the world, to the General Assembly at its sixty-third session.

[Skybird]

Dobbs is not the problem here, Fatty. And as I said: the story is old. It's some years of an ongoing operation. And in the EU, you partially already have the criminalisation of criticising Islam - under the label of "anti-discrimination" laws. For some opportunities where I have or would refuse to favour a person with Islamic background over somebody else - I could be sued under German and EU law.

If you can't see the problems in the text you just have quoted yourself, than help you God! :D

[joegrundman]

Why not help him by specifically highlighting the specific points that are problematic?

[Skybird]

It's all laid out before your eyes, plain and unhidden, and your question most likely is absolutely rethorical.

Anyhow: I started to list the number sof the critical paragraphs, and found that I listed almost all of them, which makes it useless a practice. So, in general it is claimed that criticism of religion should be excluded from the freedom of speech, where as Islam is especially singled out in needing to be "protected", and that using free speech to reject religion'S and islam'S wishes of how they want to be seen in public is an "abuse" of free speech and is "defamation" and "hate crime". Considering the deeply totaltiatrian and intolerant nature of especially islam, and any other fuindamentalist incarnation of "religion", this is really a rich demand. Accerpting it would be a card blanche for Islamic/religious tyranny, like in the European medieval. It would end secularism. It would need redesigning of most basic principles of legal systems, and constitutions. Excatly what fundamentalist zealots of all confessions want. That especially means: Jewish and Christian fundametal sects, and islam.

[historic reflection on]When Muhammad wanted his followers to follow him uncritically, he gave his orders and demands in form of religious claims. that turned any criticism of them into a heresy. Heresy often shortened the life of the so-called heretics. Claiming religion is the best way to protect yourself against unwanted criticism and critical, independant thinking. [historic reflection off]

Considering the authors of this text, the Islamic block, and taking into account that Islam has no tolerance for other cultures that goes beyond double-tongued lip-confessions, this is essentially a demand for Islam being put into a dominant positions where it is beyond criticism, independant thoiught, and all voices adressing it or talking about it being brought into line: the line Islam wants.

And this is totalitarianism in hardcore format. In Germany, we have a special term for trying to implement this method, owing to history. We call it "Gleichschaltung".

[Tchocky]

White man he speak with forked legislation.

[Tribesman]

If you can't see the problems in the text you just have quoted yourself, than help you God!
True , how anyone can read...
Affirms that the Human Rights Council shall promote universal respect
for all religious and cultural values and address instances of intolerance,
discrimination and incitement of hatred against members of any community or
adherents of any religion;
and not translate it to ....
it covers any religion apart from Islam because the non-mythical united islamic power block who wrote that hid the real words as part of their evil plot to take over the world .

So to leave the birds in the sky or the moonbats in orbit , we have a piece of a proposal that doesn't say what its critics say it does , cannot be made binding , cannot force america or anywhere else to change its constitution or laws and some people are getting their panties in twist over it .:rotfl: