It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

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

page: 4
39
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 11:01 AM
link   
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic
 


The version I linked is pretty much the same thing as the one you linked just with the changes I described before. It doesn't have anyone's opinion about the resolution in it but those can be found here:


JEAN-BAPTISTE MATTEI (France), speaking on behalf of the European Union, in an explanation of the vote before the vote, [...] Human rights laws did not and should not protect belief systems. Hence, the language on stereotyping only applied to stereotyping of individuals and not of ideologies, religions or abstract values. The European Union rejected and would continue to reject the concept of defamation of religions and also rejected the misuse of religions or belief themselves for incitement of hatred. Further, the notion of a moral and social responsibility of the media as expressed in the resolution went well behind the "special duties and responsibilities". The European Union could not subscribe to this concept in such general terms. States should not seek to interfere with the work of journalists and had to enable editorial independence of the media.



ZAMIR AKRAM (Pakistan) speaking on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said the Organization of the Islamic Conference attached great importance to the exercise of freedom of belief and expression, but the exercise of this right carried with it duties and responsibilities, including the need to fight against hate speech. [...] Negative stereotyping or defamation of religions was a modern expression of religious hatred and xenophobia. This spread not only to individuals but to religions and belief systems, leading to violence, discrimination and hatred, negatively affecting human rights. The Organization of the Islamic Conference wished to put on record, that as per its understanding, the references to obligations under international human rights law came under the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination and other particular bodies. The resolution should be adopted by consensus, now and in the future.



CARLOS PORTALES (Chile), in an explanation of the vote before the vote, said that this topic was so important that it had led to a list of different views on this draft. [...] The concept of the defamation of religion took them in an area that could lead to the actual prohibition of opinions. In the world of beliefs there were different opinions. The history of religion included many examples; each of the great religions had had divisions and schisms. The Council had to find formulas that did not broaden or impose limitations on this right.


So Portales and Mattei both voiced concerns that this could lead to someone's speech being being stifled because it "defamed" a religion. So honestly I don't think the article's writer took too many liberties with their writing. I didn't see anything that specifically said there would be action taken against someone who did speak negatively about a religion, but the possibility that it could happen is there.




posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 11:02 AM
link   
Obviously the wording of these things is intended to not offend anyone while trying to allow everyone their own interpretation.

The risk remains in my mind that this document will allow an extreme view of Islam that is intolerant of other religions whilst at the same time disallowing anyone else from complaining about that extremism.

It doesn't really change anything or protect anyone. The definition of what constitutes "incitement to discrimination" is open to interpretation and will surely be interpreted differently on both sides of "the fence".



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 11:03 AM
link   
reply to post by jprophet420
 


That first quote is mine, the second one is not. Mind attributing the correct people with their quotes?



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 11:07 AM
link   
I'm a citizen of America, not the UN and their charters. The UN does not supersede the constitution and the 1st amendment, therefore it simply does not apply to me. They can create all the Orwellian speech-crime rules they want, but I will pay them no heed.



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 11:23 AM
link   
reply to post by TrueBrit
 


I have been reading about what is happening in the UK ans well as Australia and other countries. We have problems here in the USA too. See Islamberg A Muslim foreign national has set up paramilitary training camps and gives just released convicts bus tickets and our FBI goes to the camp for a F$#@ picnic!!! These men are probably shipped to Afganistan and the Middleast to fight against fellow Americans. (they are now missing from these camps)

Here is some info that may explain what is going on. It seems we are dealing with an unholy alliance of the ultra wealthy who would gladly sell us into 12th century type slavery in return for power and wealth.

"Our democracy is up for sale to the highest bidder, award-winning investigative journalist Greg Palast has uncovered disturbing evidence confirming as much. link





At the peak of his deal-making activities, in the nineteen-seventies, the Saudi-born businessman Adnan Khashoggi brokered billions of dollars in arms and aircraft sales for the Saudi royal family, earning hundreds of millions in commissions and fees. Though never convicted of wrongdoing, he was repeatedly involved in disputes with federal prosecutors and with the Securities and Exchange Commission, and in recent years he has been in litigation in Thailand and Los Angeles, among other places, concerning allegations of stock manipulation and fraud. During the Reagan Administration, Khashoggi was one of the middlemen between Oliver North, in the White House, and the mullahs in Iran in what became known as the Iran-Contra scandal. www.newyorker.com...






The Bush family,... the Saudi royals....—and other rich and influential Saudi families [Khashoggi ] were naturally drawn to one another as they share similar ideologies and goals: the “new world order” which is to be governed and controlled by a small ruling class elite, That is, the “Brotherhood”.In the 1960s, and certainly by the 1970s, they were all doing business together.

However, in the case of the Saudis, that new world order will be a world-wide Islamic state, governed according to Sunni Wahhabi interpretations of Islam (15). Although that goal is not shared by the Bush-Wall Street-corporate elite, the Bush team and the Saudis are nevertheless willing to work closely together, to increase their wealth and their power, and to combat and eliminate common enemies and competitors for world domination .

Indeed, due in part to Saudi efforts, since the 1980s, Islam has become the fastest growing religion among Latinos in the Americas ....

Bush business partner and friend, Adnan Khashoggi, a Saudi billionaire oil and arms trader, admitted in a television-interview, that he funneled $5 million dollars to help finance arms shipments to the Contras who were terrorizing Nicaragua. In addition, the Sultan of Brunei — the richest man in the world — pitched in another $10 million.

Let us recall that Saudi billionaire, Adnan Khashoggi, was providing millions of dollars to support the Contras, as was the Sultan of Brunei, and the royal family of Saudi King Fahd . brainmind.com...



There are only two real groups on earth. The ultra wealthy who would enslave us by any means possible and the would be slaves. Islam, Socialism, Communism, Corporatism, Central Banking, TPTB really do not care just as long as they have the power and wealth and we do not. Islam is a much more useful tool for enslaving than Christianity is at this time. They lost control of Christianity when the USA cut the ties between church and state. Before that either the English Aristocracy or Rome were in control but that control was starting to slip badly as the middle class emerged and became educated.



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 11:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Jenna
 


just using my freedom of speech to reach my target audience. I was using the second quote to explain an entire philosophy in 2 lines. Nobody thinks you said that, and its (the authors name) not relevant to the conversation.



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 11:30 AM
link   
freedom of expression is already limited. but i think if the govt were to "hit" people for saying certain thing and others became aware, im not sure where it would lead.

if they started to imprison people for speaking out imagine what they'ed do to people that were acting out



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 11:31 AM
link   
reply to post by jprophet420
 


It's relevant when you didn't even bother attributing my quote to me and then followed by quoting from somewhere else.



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas
 





By these laws changing almost faster than the average citizens can keep up with, or where they need a legal team like O.J. Simpson to interpret it for them, while we as citizens do not have billions to get away with murder, it is surprising that every one of us is not incarcerated already.


After this last six months, I already expect I will be incarcerated or at least they will try. I have been law abiding for all my life but I refuse to bow down and give up my Constitutional rights therefore I will be incarcerated.





posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 11:47 AM
link   
reply to post by centurion1211
 





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?


The only way to figure out if the "News" is true, partially true or down right lies is to determine how it will help the wealthy advance. Killing freedom of speech is very helpful therefore this story is probably true.



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 11:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by AshleyD

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.


Agreed. While I do not endorse the exageration and hyperbole surrounding the erosion of basic rights as often seen on ATS and evidenced with this OP I do agree that the current administration has slowed the erosion of basic rights...where I would rather see a reversal of course.



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 have underlined some phrases that speak to the core of this resolution.

While I find nothing in this passage to be alarmed with, for those that do, it is worthwhile pointing out the nature of a resolution.

It is an OPINION expressed by an assembly, not a law, thus the phrases..."express concern" and "urge" rather than "demand" or "require".

I agree with this resolution, but by design, it has no teeth.

Much ado about nothing IMO. Spin and partisan rhetoric...though suprisingly worthwhile with BH and Jenna's honest debate and analysis.


[edit on 6-10-2009 by maybereal11]



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 11:52 AM
link   
You know, these are the sort of things that the Pilgrims left England for. That is, the freedom to criticize and practice whatever religion you want.

I.E. The freedom of speech and the separation of church and state.

Just throwing that out there.



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 11:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by crimvelvet
reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas
 




By these laws changing almost faster than the average citizens can keep up with, ..... it is surprising that every one of us is not incarcerated already.

..... I have been law abiding for all my life but I refuse to bow down and give up my Constitutional rights therefore I will be incarcerated.



Again this is NOT a LAW, but rather by design just an opinion expressed by the UN assembly...not the USA. Not Law.

To go from a a UN resolution (Opinion) to law to infering it is a US Law and then talk of pending arrests....well IMO that crosses from exagerration to just being dishonest in the discussion.



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 12:18 PM
link   
reply to post by merryxmas
 





It's surprising and I'm not entirely sure I believe the US has come back to it. In either case I wouldn't worry about any policy coming out of here actually affecting the US.


WRONG the precedence has already been set. TREATIES over rule the Constitution!!!

Or at least that is what the politicians who are selling us out want you to believe.

"This [Supreme] Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty." - Reid v. Covert, October 1956, 354 U.S. 1, at pg 17.

"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.· - Miller v. U.S., 230 F 2d 486, 489.

Because of President Clinton's ratification of WTO, US laws are no longer written by Americans but by foreign organizations. Countries that resist implementing of these International Standards as laws (a procedure called Harmonization) are subject to WTO trade sanctions. Under WTO rules, cases involving enforcement of the International Standards are heard in complete secrecy by a tribunal of three trade bureaucrats who have no conflict of interest rules binding them, therefore a Monsanto lawyer can rule on a case of material interest to Monsanto. ”All court documents are confidential and cannot be published. It is a modern version of the Spanish Inquisition with far more power.' F. William Engdahl, www.publiceyeonscience.ch...



The FDA has plainly stated its position on International Harmonization of Laws,. ”Failure to reach a consistent, harmonized set of laws, regulations and standards within the freetrade agreements and the World Trade Organization Agreements can result in considerable economic repercussions.” The FDA even names the International Organizations the FDA is now taking its orders from.

So how did the United Stated manage to give up its sovereignty on such important issues as food and medicine? The answer is we did not.

During the debate on approving the WTO Agreement, Congress was justifiably worried that the multinational pact was in conflict with U.S. Sovereignty. Arguments for ratification were vehemently endorsed by Clinton Administration officials who were eager to get the agreement passed Congress. Congressional fears were lulled by pointing out Congress is ultimately responsible for changing the laws of the United States; and second, the U.S. is entitled to withdraw from the WTO. Also a feature of the Uruguay Round agreements are described as follows:

United States Law to Prevail in Conflict The URAA puts U.S. sovereignty and U.S. law under perfect protection. According to the Act, if there is a conflict between U.S. and any of the Uruguay Round agreements, U.S. law will take precedence regardless when U.S. law is enacted. § 3512 (a) states: "No provision of any of the Uruguay Round Agreements, nor the application of any such provision to any person or circumstance, that is inconsistent with any law of the United States shall have effect." Specifically, implementing the WTO agreements shall not be construed to "amend or modify any law of the United States, including any law relating to (i) the protection of human, animal, or plant life or health, (ii) the protection of the environment, or (iii) worker safety", or to "limit any authority conferred under any law of the United States, including section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974." www.eastlaw.net...


In other words we must become very paranoid because TPTB want badly educated Americans to think the USA loses its Sovereignty when it signs treaties.



"The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution;". - ART. 6 U.S. CONST.

Article 6 above, is called the SUPREMACY CLAUSE, and it clearly states that, under every circumstance, the above listed officials in these United States must hold this documents tenets supreme over any other laws, regulations, or orders. Every U.S. Police officer knows that they have sworn a oath to the people of our nation that we will not only protect their lives and property, but, that we will uphold, and protect their freedoms and rights under the Supreme laws of this nation, - the U. S. Constitution.
Source



Obama needs to have his feet held to the fire over this and ART. 6 U.S. CONSTITUTION is the fire.





posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 12:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by maybereal11

It is an OPINION expressed by an assembly, not a law, thus the phrases..."express concern" and "urge" rather than "demand" or "require".

I agree with this resolution, but by design, it has no teeth.


That is very true and a good point. How often are UN resolutions used to justify the actions a country takes though? I know our government used some to justify entering Iraq, but I'm sure there are other examples that I'm unaware of.

Edit: spelling..

[edit on 6-10-2009 by Jenna]



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 12:39 PM
link   
reply to post by mikerussellus
 


hahahaha brilliant



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jenna

Originally posted by maybereal11

It is an OPINION expressed by an assembly, not a law, thus the phrases..."express concern" and "urge" rather than "demand" or "require".

I agree with this resolution, but by design, it has no teeth.


That is very true and a good point. How often are UN resolutions used to justify the actions a country takes though? I know our government used some to justify entering Iraq, but I'm sure there are other examples that I'm unaware of.

Edit: spelling..

[edit on 6-10-2009 by Jenna]


Oh the irony...yes we used UN resolutions to justify our actions in Iraq...while at the same time ignoring them and taking semi "unilateral" action. By most accounts the US and Israel are the two biggest "ignorers" of UN "resolutions"...For better or for worse..



UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan said in September 2004 that: "From our point of view and the United Nations Charter point of view, it [the war] was illegal."[44]


What is being debated here is an opinion expressed by the UN Assembly(resolution), not a law, not a treaty, an agreed upon political opinion.

It binds no one. It is simply a political position piece "urging" and suggesting a given policy among UN Members. If the US can ignore the UN Charter when it sees fit...why get excited about a far reaching, IMO partisan biased interpretation of a resolution...by the UN...resolution...

LOTS of EXAGERATION and HYPERBOLE HERE

[edit on 6-10-2009 by maybereal11]



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by maybereal11
It binds no one. It is simply a political position piece "urging" and suggesting a given policy among UN Members. If the US can ignore the UN Charter when it sees fit...why get excited about a far reaching, IMO opinion partisan biased interpretation of a resolution...by the UN...resolution...


I'm not talking about the article, I'm talking about the resolution itself. The article writers words were dismissed and forgotten as soon as BH and I found the resolution. (Both the original and the amended versions.) I've never been one to rant and rave about government intrusions, not much anyway. But I am not alone in my thinking that this doesn't bode well and that it could indeed by used to stifle speech.

Our government has shown that it will pay attention to the resolutions it likes, and seeing as how our representatives in the UN had a hand in amending this resolution it really not that far of a leap to be concerned that this will be one they pay attention to.



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 01:10 PM
link   
once again, we see an attempt in prgress, to control people. ITS stupid! i mean cmon, this dosnt work...i could easliy say nice things, then silently mumble horrible bad things about the perso, then act as if i was clearing my throat..you cannot stop anyone or everyone from saying whats on thier mind
hell i could go around the corner and talk junk about someone after meeting them! how does this obama law thing, change that? The only way i see it working, is if intimidation causing fear was implied....



posted on Oct, 6 2009 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by maybereal11
 




Again this is NOT a LAW, but rather by design just an opinion expressed by the UN assembly...not the USA. Not Law.

To go from a a UN resolution (Opinion) to law to infering it is a US Law and then talk of pending arrests....well IMO that crosses from exagerration to just being dishonest in the discussion.




I was not speaking of this UN resolution but about the World Trade Organization Agreement on Agriculture that Obama and Congress is about to shove down the throats of American Farmers. There have already been several clashes and DEATHS because international Ag "rules" got imposed on Americans. I am justifiably nervous about ANYTHING the United Nations comes up with because some how it later gets implemented here and abroad and it is often MUCH WORSE than I thought it would be.

To sit there and say we should ignore the fact very powerful men are discussing how to handle "freedom of speech" especially when they use the word "incitement" as a reason to limit "freedom of speech" is crazy. These people do not waste their time on something they do not have further plans for.

The UN and the WTO were working hand in glove for decades in developing "The Guide to Good Farming Practices" and imposing patent law on plant seeds. I could track it all the way back to1942 But I will start in 1993.

In 1993 FAO prepared “the Global Strategy for the Management of Farm Animal Genetic Resources” ftp.fao.org...

In 1995 World Trade Organization (WTO) formed. Former Cargill Vice-President, Dan Amstutz, drafts the original text of the Uruguay Round Agreement on Agriculture. www.zmag.org...
Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) introduced intellectual property rules on plants, animals and seeds under WTO’s Agreement “could damage the livelihoods of these 1.4 billion farmers worldwide and undermine food sovereignty and food security ” www.fao.org...

July 1996 Major re-structuring of USDA food policies: Pathogen Reduction/Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) Systems rule, based on International HACCP guidelines developed by the Codex Alimentarius, Published: 1993
www.fsis.usda.gov...

January 2005: Guide to good farming practices: This draft guide to good farming practices for animal production food safety was taken from the Report of the Meeting of the OIE Terrestrial Animal Health Standards Commission (Paris, 17-28 January 2005) www.oie.int/boutique/extrait/25berlingueri823836_0.pdf?PHPSESSID=64969a28688594daf57a7263f42fb1ce

Quickly followed by the US bill to impose the International Guide to good farming practices on American farmers. 2005 Bill: Safe and Secure Food Act www.govtrack.us...

It was defeated so now we got several bills that make the 2005 bill look good! If those laws pass I and many more farmers will end up in jail.



new topics

top topics



 
39
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join