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.
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.
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...
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.
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?
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.
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...
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.
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.
"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
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.
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]
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]
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...
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.