Muslim nations are agitating at the UN to silence criticism of their 7th century, obscurantist, global freak show
They're using the UN to push a kind of international thought crime speech code, and the Obama Administration is helping, according to Stuart Taylor at National Journal:
I'm talking about a little-publicized October 2 resolution in which Clinton's own State Department joined Islamic nations in adopting language all-too-friendly to censoring speech that some religions and races find offensive.
The ambiguously worded United Nations Human Rights Council resolution could plausibly be read as encouraging or even obliging the U.S. to make it a crime to engage in hate speech, or, perhaps, in mere "negative racial and religious stereotyping." This despite decades of First Amendment case law protecting such speech.
This is all part of the Muslim agenda to stifle all criticism of their religion and its adherents, to include calling an Islamic terrorist an Islamic terrorist.
But the real problem is a provision, which the U.S. championed jointly with Egypt, exuding hostility to free expression.
That provision [...] 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 law, to address and combat such incidents" (emphasis added).
Taylor is a moderate man not prone to wild alarums. Neither is the scholarly Eugene Volokh, but he cautiously backs Taylor in this post at The Volokh Conspiracy.
I’m worried that it might be a step backward for our own constitutional rights, because of what seems to be the U.S. endorsement of the suppression of “any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence” and possibly of “negative stereotyping of religions and racial groups.”
Our UN diplomats should be nowhere near this issue; it violates our very basic principles of free speech. Both articles are short and quite informative. I recommend you read them both, and then write to your elected officials.
Volokh Conspiracy
National Journal - Stuart Taylor
11 comments:
I have some choice words for the muslims, but I'll keep them to myself lest the UN Blue Helmets swoop in and set up a Peacekeeping Zone in your comment section.
Yeah... They'd probably get lost and then attempt to rape the readers...
The Muslim movement will not stop until they have world domination and their tyrannical religion as the only religion. Otherwise, most of us will be executed for being dissenters.
Not surprised that our present administration is suppporting this debacle, what else is new?
When is enough enough and shut the f!!! up!!! How much do we bend over backwards until our back is broke?
Ditto all ya'lls comments as we're the only people with the nads' to stand up to these people.
This ridiculous appeaser move turns all dissent into hate speech eventually, just like the gay hate speech law just passed.
You're absolutely right Silverfiddle, totally against our 1st amendment. Not 5 not 8 number freakin' 1. Kinda think the founders would wizz on this one too.
I see this argument made repeatedly, regarding treaties violating the US Constitution.
However, one must understand that first, the President signing a treaty is no more than a symbolic act with no legal ramifications outside of the previously existing executive authority assigned to the president under the US Constitution. In essence, if signed by the President and not ratified it is no more than an Executive Order, sometimes termed an Executive Agreement when regarding treaties.
In order to become binding, and "the law of the land" a treaty must be ratified by congress, as such it is a legislative act, also bound by the constraints of the US Constitution.
To assert that treaties, ratified or not, trump the US Constitution is a misconception voiced by too many. On this point the Constitution is clear:
Article VI, 2.
This constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance therof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, ANY THING IN THE CONSTITUTION OR LAWS OF ANY STATE TO THE CONTRARY NOTWITHSTANDING.
In Reid v. Covert (1957)the Supreme Court in majority opinion wrote: "There is nothing in this language which intimates that treaties and laws enacted pursuant to them do not have to comply with the provisions of the Constitution.
...It would be manifestly contrary to the objectives of those who created the COnstituion, as well as those who where responsible for the Bill of Rights - let alone alien to our entire constituional history and tradition to construe Article VI as permitting the United States to exercise power under international agreement without observing constitutional prohibitions.
... The prohibitions of the Constitution were designed to apply to all branches of the National Government and they cannot be nullified by the Executive or by the Executive and the Senate combined.
There is nothing new or unique about what we say here. This Court has regularly and uniformly recognizzed the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty."
Sorry it's such a verbose response (lol), but this Constitution-Treaty supremacy debate and the popular (populist?) fallacies and misconceptions surrounding it is something of a sore point.
So, no, treaties do not and cannot trump the Constitution.
~Finntann~
I hear ya Finntann. And you are verbose ;)
100 years of cockroach lawyers and rat judges nibbling away of the constitution leaves me jaundiced.
Hold your horses. Taylor shows the shaky ground he's on in the above quote, but goes farther in the full article: "To be sure, the provisions to which I refer were a compromise, stopping short of the flat ban on defamation of religion sought by Islamic nations, and they could also be construed more narrowly and innocuously. It all depends on who does the construing." Well, you should know how Taylor will construe them. He's no moderate either. He defended the OLC torture memos in this program.
Volokh says the same in the post quoted: "I say “seems to be” because some of the language in the resolution is pretty slippery, and of course it’s always possible that I’m misunderstanding it."
Speculating sure is fun and fills lots of column inches, though.
My bottom line is that we shouldn't be anywhere near such an illiberal piece of garbage such as this.
We used to stand up internationally for the classical liberalism that this country was founded upon.
They can pass all the Hate Speech laws they want, the only way they will shut me up will be to execute me. All I can say to that is have at it. I can think of a lot worse things.
Reverend: That is where these radicals want to take us. Say the wrong think and they kill you.
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.