It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Resolution adopted by the United Nations Human Rights Council 16/18

page: 1

log in


posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 08:49 AM
I'm not sure if this is the right forum to post this, but I am going to put it in here because of it's relevance to the war on terrorism and it's subsequent use of the religious terminology which was used by authorities to ascertain information on criminal subjects...please move to adequate forum if needed.

Religious intolerance has already began through a Resolution adopted by the United Nations Human Rights Council 16/18 on March 26, 2011.

Basically the UN has outlawed speech that would portray or depict a specific Faith as being complicit in ideals formed from the, if a particular group or affiliate of said group, commits criminal offenses, in the name of it's belief, then the person can be convicted, but religious rule stands, and cannot be touched.

No Blasphemy allowed...

This resolution has also been adopted by the United States by revising it's codes on how Security Apparatus and personnel in the US define possible National Security threats by revising it's literature.

UN adopts resolution on religious intolerance

The article I am quoting below is from February 16, which Director of National Intelligence James Clapper describes the evolution of Al - Qaeda, and uses proverbial language defamating Islam. This particular type of speech has been outlawed by the UN and the US, along with other Nations.


During his testimony, Clapper stated that al-Qaeda’s ability to perpetrate large-scale terrorism attacks -- such as the September 11, 2001, attacks -- is weaker than it was in past years thanks to US operations stateside and abroad against Islamic extremists.

So in the near future the context of using a particular religion in defining threats has been is this going to help America or the world for that matter in it's battle against individuals who use religion to wage war...looks like the cloaking device has been put on for the invisible war.

This could be a dangerous precedent, because this will put Free Speech in America under Religious Law...This will now put America under Sharia Law.

US meets with Muslim countries that want to ban Free Speech in America

The State Dept., Islam, and Freedom of Religion

State Dept. aims to denounce ' Offensive Speech' while upholding Free Expression

edit on 21-12-2011 by Daedal because: Edit

posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 10:28 AM
Bosnia moving toward Sharia law

On December 19, 2011 the Mufti of Bosnia called for the RS president to be declared an unwelcomed person, accusations of racism and defamation against Islam have been purported, and that a proposal would be sent to embassies of Islamic countries to declare him persona non-grata for his alleged activity to "spread Islamophobia".

Source / Alternative source

The president of the Serb Republic (RS) deduced that this was "leading toward a creation of a Sharia state".

"I have nothing against Bosniaks and Islam, I respect freedom of religion, but it is the desire of the Islamic Community in Bosnia-Herzegovina to direct political processes in the country that is completely unacceptable," he said.

The president added that this community was attacking the RS and him personally, "to which I have a duty to react, as president and politician".

Siege of Mecca and Juhayman al-Otaibi: CIA and GIGN operatives converted to Islam

edit on 21-12-2011 by Daedal because: Edit

posted on Dec, 21 2011 @ 01:20 PM
reply to post by Daedal

I agree with you, largely. And I would think ATSers would be all over this, after all, freedom of speech is what allows our existence here. Not only is freedom of speech good in and of itself, to solve a problem the problem must be clearly and accurately discussed.

I'm not saying that all speech should be protected, but we should be extremely critical of anything that reduces it, even in a small way. I think this resolution goes too far. The deciding factor in freedom of speech cases should not be whether some gets offended.

posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 02:08 PM
The article I am about to quote is from February, and I haven't seen it posted here on ATS. However I believe it may be what is coming to America shortly, at least that's what it 's beginning to look like in light of all the recent provisions being made in the Administration and at the UN.

February was Hate Speech Month in Europe


February 2011 apparently was "Hate Speech Month in Europe," as a trio of "hate speech" trials in Europe made some big news. On February 15, Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff (ESW) was found guilty of hate speech against religion in Austria because of statements she made in a series of seminars about the dangers of Sharia law.

Although she could have been given a three year sentence in prison, she was (only) fined 480 Euros (or the equivalent of $646.73). Also in February, the Dutch court ruled that the hate crimes trial of the flamboyant Geert Wilders, the anti-Islam Dutch politician the Dutch elites have been trying to run out of politics for about three years now, would continue, even though the prosecution doesn't really want to prosecute him and the previous judges were ousted for showing an obvious bias against Mr. Wilders. And Danish author Lars Hedegaard was found not guilty by a technicality for his comments regarding violence among the Muslim immigrant communities in Denmark. Lucky for Mr. Hedegaard, the Danish Court held that he had not meant for these comments to be published!

Why is the Obama Administration giving the OIC a say in our Right to Free Speech

USCIRF welcomes move away from " defamation of religion" concept

Rising restrictions on religion

Is the first amendment in jeopardy

edit on 23-12-2011 by Daedal because: Edit

posted on Dec, 23 2011 @ 02:47 PM
Thanks for bringing that up, it definitely affects free speech and it's another BS UN law which should be ignored.

Funny how the US government ignores the UN when it wants to do something and the UN disagrees, but when it's time to kill those rights, the US government loves the UN...

new topics

top topics

log in