At the UN, the Obama administration backs limits on free speech.

Originally posted by Jenna

The new resolution, championed by the Obama administration, has a number of disturbing elements. It emphasizes that "the exercise of the right to freedom of expression carries with it special duties and responsibilities . . ." which include taking action against anything meeting the description of "negative racial and religious stereotyping."

Thank you Jenna, but does anyone know what the actual resolution says as regards this "action" to be taken? Notice that the statement from the article does not have quote marks around the action portion of that statement:

...which include taking action against anything meeting the description of "negative racial and religious stereotyping."

Any time only a portion of a statement is quoted, I become suspicious. What action (if any) are we talking about here? Not that any action would be acceptable, but I can't help but wonder if this isn't just the writer's way of fudging the details to further his agenda. To trust MSM for the facts is a chance I don't like to take.

And are we talking about in the US? In the US and Egypt only? The UN Nations? Worldwide? Is this to apply to everyone? Just the MSM? I don't feel like I have all the facts here. Is this law? Just a warm fuzzy resolution stating ideas? Just words on a page? Does this mean ANYTHING?

If someone wants to say that a particular religion, or every religion, is a bunch of hogwash they shouldn't have any action taken against them for saying so.

I absolutely agree! But I'm not convinced that this is what is being said here.

reply to post by AshleyD


What is the evidence that Obama supports this resolution?

Originally posted by centurion1211
Yes, once again in their rush to defend obama against any and all criticisms,

Since when is asking for clarification a "rush to defend"? Is it OK with you if I get all the facts before rushing to judgment and jumping on this bandwagon?? Never mind. I don't care if it's OK with you.

Originally posted by SaturnFX
Ahh the standard...
about as credible as The Onion and as balanced as Rush Limbaugh.

See, that's what I'm wondering. All these carefully placed quote marks have me concerned. I wish people would be more discerning... Let's find the truth, shall we?

Originally posted by bigfoot1212
however if i want to stand out in the street and invoke violence and denounce my gov't to cause a revolution THAT is my RIGHT!

I agree with you.

Originally posted by centurion1211
Can you add anything beyond a "shoot the messenger" post?

Can you? All you've done so far is attack other people for their posts. You haven't added any clarity at all. I think you'd like to keep the waters muddy. Give me a break!

What I want to know is... What exactly IS this resolution and how do we know Obama supports it? Is that too much to ask before I join your hate fest? Of course it's ridiculous and I am 100% against any action being taken against free speech. But I want the facts. Excuse me if that bothers you.

[edit on 6-10-2009 by Benevolent Heretic]

reply to post by crimvelvet


Now , here I feel a word or two is required. In Britain we have a bunch of laws getting passed without public consultation which amount to seperate laws for muslims, much as suggested in this thread will be occuring in the states.
I for one cannot understand how a person can expect to import his or her own religious code , in place of the law of the land he or she is in. If I and half a million christians go to Iraq or Afganistan or some such place, and say to the local enforcers " Hey bub, because a few of us showed up, Im sure you wont mind me an my buddies here drinking to excess , having sex out of wedlock, getting ladies pregnant, and listening to heavy metal right ? " I would expect to get my rear shot off and worse besides, and quite right too ! Here in Britain folks come to our shores via allsorts of dubious methods because they hear how easy it is to play our wellfare system, and of course if they can get good work they know they will get paid much better here, and theres less risk of being killed .
I cant see why they cant accept the law of thier new home in return for this lifestyle change.

Originally posted by centurion1211

Originally posted by SaturnFX
Ahh the standard...
about as credible as The Onion and as balanced as Rush Limbaugh.

next.

Ah, then you must prefer to be indoctrinated by our state controlled media - cnn, msnbc, ny times, la times, washington post, etc.

Can you add anything beyond a "shoot the messenger" post?

Listening to the speech again, looking for anything he is saying he wants to limit freedom of speech or expression.

meanwhile, the messenger you speak of is also the message, that is the problem...Obama can say "its a nice day today" and they will report: "Obama admits everyday is bad except for 1 day"" or some such nonsense prattle.

news websites like that are for the real sheep whom are unable to even formulate a thought...but dont worry, they go on both sides, far right and far left (TYT is for left sheep)...as far as MSM...I guess i use them, CNN and news.bbc.co.uk I find the most center and grounded in reality...oh, and this interwebbie thingie (that caters to no side)

So...since this is your thread, mind giving me a timeframe where he sneaks in the discussion about how he is anti-freedom for us?

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


I'm looking for the resolution right now actually. I found a summary, but not the resolution itself so far. Not too good at navigating the UN's website though so that's probably the source of my trouble.

EDIT: Well, I found it on this page (3rd from the bottom of the page).. But I don't speak good enough French, Spanish, Arabic, or Chinese to read it.. For some reason the English version isn't linked there. I'll keep looking though.

[edit on 6-10-2009 by Jenna]

Obama doesn't support this.

US Government Response to OHCHR regarding the Defamation of Religions resolution

Aug 12, 2009

As stated in its previous submissions to the United Nations, the United States does not believe the concept of “defamation of religions” is consistent with international human rights law. We believe the resolution seeks unacceptable limitations on speech and that such measures do not properly address the underlying concerns emphasized in the text. Our concerns and objections are well known. (See Tab 1 and Tab2.)
...
In his June 4, 2009 speech in Cairo, President Obama stressed that the United States must fight against the negative stereotyping of religion when he stated, “I consider it part of my responsibility as President of the United States to fight against negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they occur.” The United States believes that States have the tools to fight these problems at their disposal, and that the best way for governments to address these issues is to develop effective legal regimes to address acts of discrimination and bias-inspired crime; to condemn hateful ideology and proactively reach out to all religious communities, especially minority groups; and to vigorously defend the rights of individuals to practice their religion freely and exercise their freedom of expression.

Originally posted by SM2
I do not see how this ego maniac can even consider doing things like this.

How is he an "ego maniac"?

First off it clearly contradicts the constitution and bill of rights. For all you left wingers out there that love the Glorious Leader Obama, there is no way to spin this, its illegal, unethcal and just flat out wrong.

From the source:

It emphasizes that "the exercise of the right to freedom of expression carries with it special duties and responsibilities . . ." which include taking action against anything meeting the description of "negative racial and religious stereotyping." It also purports to "recognize . . . the moral and social responsibilities of the media" and supports "the media's elaboration of voluntary codes of professional ethical conduct" in relation to "combating racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance."

I do not see anything that goes against freedom of speech any more than existing laws against hate crimes. I'm not going to entertain you with examples of hate speech etc that would not be legal already (which is just fine). That paragraph presents nothing new and the thread is is just dying right wing grasping straws.

Originally posted by Jenna
reply to post by jprophet420

 

Go ahead. I read it twice. Once before I posted originally, and again before I made my last post in order to find the section I wanted to quote which ironically you just quoted at me.

Did you miss the part on page two where it says:

Pakistan's Ambassador Zamir Akram, speaking on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, made it clear that they understand the resolution and its protection against religious stereotyping as allowing free speech to be trumped by anything that defames or negatively stereotypes religion. The idea of protecting the human rights "of religions" instead of individuals is a favorite of those countries that do not protect free speech and which use religion--as defined by government--to curtail it.

Which I also just quoted a few posts up by the way. Anything that defames or negatively stereotypes religion. So if I said that the Islamic extremists are a bunch of loons who have a warped view of religion and their version is false and due in part to their insane religious beliefs they're trying to force everyone else to say nothing bad about it, I'd be in violation of this resolution. Oops...

I guess you are missing the point that it would be unambiguously wrong to do that.

If you said it about the people who actually contributed to it it wouldn't be a sterotype and it wouldn't be against the resolution.

Originally posted by abecedarian
Black people speaking negatively, or otherwise aggregating and aligning themselves against white people, or otherwise grouping 'white people' in to a 'community' of like-minded people then speaking about that community of white people, either individually or in aggregate, in the pejorative will no longer be tolerated.
Not every white person has had a black slave in their heritage and we, collectively being "white" cannot nor will accept the stereotype pepetuated against whites by the black community that suggests all white people are racist and want to restrain or otherwise restrict the black person from being the best person they are mentally and physically capable of being.

You must have lived in an area similar to where I lived. I grew up in the Memphis, TN area of Mississippi, and no matter how hard white people tried to accept and advance the friendly relationship among the blacks, there was always that group of black people that wouldn't let it happen. They were way more racist than a lot of whites. In fact, the only racist white people were the really old ones. All the 30 y/o's and below were honestly trying to pursue equality. The main reason the young whites stayed away from the blacks was an immense amount of fear. Blacks in that area were known for violent crimes against anyone of any race, so don't even think about walking in a certain area if you're a "whitey".

Does this mean Rap music will die? Thank you jesus! No more thumping bass from every gas station and mini mart! Kudos to the UN, saving the world from bad music one genre at a time.

Since when does freedom imply "responsibilities?" other than those that are self-imposed? If not, it isn't freedom but regulation.

[edit on 6-10-2009 by Asktheanimals]

First off, if you do not see that he is an egotitsical man, then you are blind.

Now, here is the source again:

It emphasizes that "the exercise of the right to freedom of expression carries with it special duties and responsibilities . . ." which include taking action against anything meeting the description of "negative racial and religious stereotyping." It also purports to "recognize . . . the moral and social responsibilities of the media" and supports "the media's elaboration of voluntary codes of professional ethical conduct" in relation to "combating racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance."

Yes, there are laws on the books now for hate crime, which I find retarded, as any crime is commited with a degree of hate and the existance of such laws are one sided and do nothing but further bad race relations. However, there is not a single law on the books that can "Take action against anything meeting the description of negative racial and religious stereotyping" If you disagree, show me the statutes..prove it.

reply to post by Jenna


Here is the resolution Obama sponsored. I'm still reading it.

And the article on Politico about it.

I think people have confused the original Resolution with this new one by Obama... Oops! Bandwagon just fell apart!

[edit on 6-10-2009 by Benevolent Heretic]

Found it here. Had to go through a few pages to find it. It's not the revised version, it's the original from before the revision. Not sure what got changed though.

Most of it is concerning the media, but these are the parts that concern religion:

4. Also expresses its concern that incidents of racial and religious intolerance, discrimination and related violence, as well as of negative stereotyping of religions and racial groups continue to rise around the world, and condemns, in this context, any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence, and urges States to take effective measures, consistent with their international human rights obligations, to address and combat such incidents;

5. Calls upon all States:

...

(p) While noting that article 19, paragraph 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provides that the exercise of the right to freedom of opinion and expression carries with it special duties and responsibilities, to refrain from imposing restrictions that are not consistent with paragraph 3 of that article, including on:
(i) Discussion of government policies and political debate; reporting on human rights, government activities and corruption in government; engaging in election campaigns, peaceful demonstrations or political activities, including for peace or democracy; and expression of opinion and dissent, religion or belief, including by persons belonging to minorities or vulnerable groups;

6. Stresses that condemning and addressing, in accordance with international human rights obligations, including those regarding equal protection of the law, any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence is an important safeguard to ensure the enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms of all, particularly minorities;

And International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 19 referred to in section 5 above:

3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:

(a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others;

(b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic


Ahh, see I found the unrevised version but this version wasn't linked with the others that I couldn't read before. Off to read it now.

EDIT: I read it and the only thing that's been changed is rewording a few things to put "obligations under international human rights laws" at the beginning of the sentence, and changing every instance of "human rights obligations" to "obligations under international human rights laws". The only exception being that paragraph 9 has been struck from this version.

9. Encourages consultations among media professionals through relevant associations and organizations at the national, regional and international levels, with the assistance of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, with a view to exchanging views on this subject and sharing best practices, taking into account the independence of the media and international human rights law;

So it's really not that different than the original..

[edit on 6-10-2009 by Jenna]

Never Mind....BH already asked Jenna the question...

It always confuses me when someone says something like ..."look! Obama just signed a document that gives away all of our constitutional rights and requires all republicans to pledge allegiance to Ted Kennedy's ghost!!!" AND when asked where in the document it says that....they qoute the "author" of some crazy bias hit piece AS IF THE AUTHORS PARTISAN OPINION BLOG SERVES AS TRUTH

What happend to reporting the facts?....and leaving the conclusions to be made be those reading/viewing the news.

Nobody else gets offended being told what to think by partisan blogging hacks?

ALWAYS READ THE SOURCE DOCS ....THINK OBJECTIVELY.....ACT LIKE SOMEONE WHO IS ABLE TO FORM OPINIONS OF THEIR OWN....STOP ACTING LIKE PARTISAN ZOMBIES EAGER TO BE TOLD WHAT TO THINK.

[edit on 6-10-2009 by maybereal11]

[edit on 6-10-2009 by maybereal11]

Originally posted by Jenna
So it's really not that different than the original..

So, in your opinion, is the OP in this thread representative of the truth? Obama is sponsoring a UN resolution to limit our free speech?

I can't get your link to work because I don't have cookies enabled. Are the same quotes in the OP found in the revised version that the US and Egypt wrote?

Originally posted by jprophet420
I guess you are missing the point that it would be unambiguously wrong to do that.

If you said it about the people who actually contributed to it it wouldn't be a sterotype and it wouldn't be against the resolution.

Not missing any points. I just understand that if I want to say that, it's my right to do so. No one else has to agree with me for it to be my right to say it. If I wanted to say that everyone who believes in Christianity is a moron who can't read, it's my right to say it. I don't believe that by the way, and it's not my opinion that all Christians are morons or that none of them can read. I said it only to demonstrate something that would be against the resolution yet I still have the right to say it if I wanted to simply because I have freedom of speech.

Regardless of whether something is wrong to say or not, people still have the right to say whatever they want. Whether or not they should is an entirely different matter that doesn't have any bearing on their right to do so.

reply to post by calcoastseeker


I know what to say.

I hate this guy. You just have to believe he was elected, er, selected to fulfill the global elite's agenda. He hates the Constitution and would love to rewrite it according to Marxist principles. And, with Pelosi and Reid's help, he's doing just that.

Great research, you two.

Some of it looks really good like:

Stressing the need that the invocation of national security, including counter-terrorism, is not used unjustifiably or arbitrarily to restrict the right to freedom of opinion and expression

I do feel we've taken our innate desire for security way too far in that our government all too often sacrifices citizen's rights under the guise of security. Many citizens have been concerned with a confiscation of our rights due to 'national security' so I really hope this will be a step in the right direction. We're all too often falsely labeling citizens as terrorists, potential terrorists, and 'domestic enemies' when it's not deserved.

I'd like to actually see this implemented because if not, we'd be awfully hypocritical to say this is what is expected for the world but not ourselves. I'm slightly confused because we seem to be going in the opposite direction of this, even under the current administration, but time will tell.

Then something I don't particularly care for and can see some disturbing chain of events coming from it:

Also expresses its concern that incidents of racial and religious intolerance, discrimination, and violence as well as of racial and religious stereotyping continue to rise around the world, and condemns in this context, any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred, that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility, or violence, and urges states to take effective measures, consistent with their obligations under international human rights laws to address and combat incidences such as...

I'm wholly against discrimination and violence but intolerance seems to be a gray area that can easily be misinterpreted on purpose. And why is 'national' included? That makes me feel uncomfortable because to criticize a country would be equated with hate speech or intolerance? I can understand how demonizing nations in order to rally your nation's support for war is wrong, wrong, wrong. But 'advocacy of national... hatred' can be too broadly defined.

Then 'incitement' to discrimination, hostility, or violence. I'm sure we all agree that discrimination, hostility, and violence is unacceptable but I'm curious to see what gets labeled as 'incitement.' That looks like it could take us down a scary road.

To be fair, the resolution has some stuff I feel most people could agree on but there does also seem to be some very vague wording that I feel could leave it open to abuse and manipulative interpretation to support an agenda. In other words, it's not just the acts of violence and discrimination but saying something that would even incite it?

Not missing any points. I just understand that if I want to say that, it's my right to do so..

While there is the letter of the law and the spirit of the law, the letter of the law of the first amendment allows you to say this, but certainly not the spirit, as it infringes on others rights.

There is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences.

You can't control the repercussions of what happens to ME when you make a jackass statement like that.

reply to post by hadriana

Makes me wonder if he is really more of a Muslim than he admits, too.

Yes Obama is Muslim, or at least wants other Muslims to think he is.

The only question is whether he is  "irtidah" (apostasy) one who gave up Islam and therefore is a target of the radical Islam element or "taqqiyah" (deception), where Obama pretends to have become a Christian in order to advance the cause of Islam through his political career in the U.S.  Then he become the target for Israel extremists. The man is walking a very fine line, no wonder he has had so many death threats!


As a Muslim, Obama has to have a Muslim name. If he was not Muslim he would be Barry not Barack Husseim. If a Muslim converts he changes his name, That is why my grandfather changed his first name. The Muslim name is a signal to other Muslims that you are Muslim. That is why Cassius Clay changed his name to Muhammad Ali.


Taqqiyah" is a technique of deception used by devout Muslims in order to advance the cause of Islam. It is part of the Jihad strategy based on deceiving unbelievers by any means possible Therefore "taqqiyah" is considered pious behavior.
Because Obama is no longer called Barry , Muslims around the world would overwhelmingly see Obama's conversion to Christianity not as a case of "irtidah" (apostasy), but as a case of "taqqiyah" (deception).

When Obama became a community organizer, he found it expedient to choose a Christian church to join as he was urged to by other organizers. It is interesting that Rev.  Wright of Trinity United Church is also supposed to have converted from Islam to his anti-white version of Christianity. link Wright was a good friend of Louis Farrakhan, a well known Black Muslim leader. Wright says of Farrakhan

"His love for Africa and African American people has made him an unforgettable force, a catalyst for change and a religious leader who is sincere about his faith and his purpose."

Another interesting note. Following his pilgrimage to Mecca, Malcolm X broke with the Black Muslims and their belief that anti-white mindset. Farrakhan wrote: "The die is set, and Malcolm shall not escape, especially after such evil foolish talk about his benefactor, Elijah Muhammad. Such a man as Malcolm is worthy of death…"

Qubilah Shabazz, daughter of Malcolm X was arrested for hiring someone to kill Farrakhan. As a girl, she watched three Nation of Islam members fire 16 bullets into the body of her father, Malcolm X.

This is the same Louis Farrakhan, who praises Obama as the hope of the entire world. Link Given that Islam requires "irtidah" (apostasy) one who gave up Islam to be killed, Farrakhan friendship with Rev. Wright and Obama indicate both are still Muslim and practicing "taqqiyah" or deception.

I am not sure I want to be on the same side with the guy responsible for calling in a hit on Malcolm X because he decided whites were not completely Evil.