20 October 2009

Obama's worst decision

I feel quite confident about the title of this posting; even if the Obama administration lasts the expected eight years, no act it commits in the future will ever be able to match the fundamental, unforgivable wrongness of this:

Around the world, free speech is being sacrificed on the altar of religion. Whether defined as hate speech, discrimination or simple blasphemy, governments are declaring unlimited free speech as the enemy of freedom of religion. This growing movement has reached the United Nations, where religiously conservative countries received a boost in their campaign to pass an international blasphemy law. It came from the most unlikely of places: the United States.

While attracting surprisingly little attention, the Obama administration supported the effort of largely Muslim nations in the U.N. Human Rights Council to recognize exceptions to free speech for any "negative racial and religious stereotyping." The exception was made as part of a resolution supporting free speech that passed this month, but it is the exception, not the rule that worries civil libertarians.....Though it has no direct enforcement (and is weaker than earlier versions), it is still viewed as a victory for those who sought to juxtapose and balance the rights of speech and religion.

No, of course a UN vote has no legal force. It's a statement of principle, and in this case, what the administration casually sold out in order to appease the Islamic gangster-states is such a bedrock principle of human freedom that the founders of this country enshrined it in the First Amendment.

Freedom of expression with the caveat "unless it offends or upsets someone" is no freedom of expression at all. Respectable, popular expression that doesn't bother anybody needs no protection. Free expression must include the absolute right to attack even the most sacred of cows, to defend views which you or I or the Pope or the Ayatollahs find shocking and outrageous, or it means nothing.

The administration's stance aligns it with the murderous, freedom-hating medieval potentates of Riyadh and Tehran, and against Jefferson, Franklin, Paine, and the heritage of the Enlightenment. Whether it's a crime or somehow merely a blunder, it is unforgiva-ble and irredeemable.

(Link above found via The Crossed Pond.)


Blogger mendip said...

It's unfortunate what oil can buy these days...

20 October, 2009 05:27  
Anonymous Ross said...

That's a terrible decision. This came up at the UN back in January 2008 and at the time the countries who voted to support it were:

" Afghanistan, Algeria, Angola, Antigua and Barbuda, Azerbaijan, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belarus, Belize, Benin, Bhutan, Bolivia, Brunei Darussalam, Burkina Faso, Cambodia, Cameroon, Cape Verde, Central African Republic, Chad, China, Comoros, Congo, Costa Rica, Côte d’Ivoire, Cuba, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Democratic Republic of the Congo, Djibouti, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Egypt, El Salvador, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Fiji, Gabon, Gambia, Grenada, Guinea, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Jamaica, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Kyrgyzstan, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Malaysia, Maldives, Mali, Mauritania, Mauritius, Morocco, Mozambique, Myanmar, Namibia, Nicaragua, Niger, Oman, Pakistan, Philippines, Qatar, Russian Federation, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Sao Tome and Principe, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Somalia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Suriname, Swaziland, Syria, Tajikistan, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Togo, Trinidad and Tobago, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uganda, United Arab Emirates, Uruguay, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, Venezuela, Viet Nam, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe."

Those voting against:

" Andorra, Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Marshall Islands, Micronesia (Federated States of), Moldova, Monaco, Montenegro, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Palau, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Samoa, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, The former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Ukraine, United Kingdom, United States."

In other words with one or two exceptions the resolution was almost a perfect dividing line between the pluralistic democratic world and the repressive world.

20 October, 2009 09:50  
Blogger Ranch Chimp said...

First off...I must say..I was laughing up a storm at Mr.Mendip's comment! :)

But all laf's aside...I agree with you 110% on this...THIS IS JUST BAD POLICY..period.You know the ole sayin with some .."give an inch and they'll take a mile.." trying to legislate law's like this is not just a trampling of free speech and insult to the founding values of our democracy, but it WILL NOT make any of these ingrates around the globe "like us" anymore...kissing their asses is the same as fighting for these f'n piece's of shit(and please feel free anyone that want's to call me racist...I mean everything I say)flea bearded ragheaded MF's!!(now that I got that out of my demonic system...let me continue) We are too concerned with kissing asses.The link posted was absolutely incredible if it is true and solid...I have been under a rock obviously and wasnt aware of it.It isnt only this I noticed...but our whole f'n society I notice especially in public school's of what children are allowed to wear,say,carry,and the list goes on...is worst than the rules I experienced incarcerated doing time.Much of this will backfire on those who support this rubbish...bet on it. The idea that we or government thinking they are just going to control everyone's speech and emotion's to walk around with big shit eating grin's a act like they love each other...is silly as thinking our government will be able to round up 200 million+ gun's and take our gun's from us. Especially with the rise in frustration across the country and globe.Sure they can bust some folk's here and there...but many frankly wont give a shit and will do what they want and say what they want.But this is truely injustice in my opinion.

Thanx for the link Sir ..........

20 October, 2009 12:10  
Blogger Ranch Chimp said...

Another thing here before I run off is the post of countries for and against that Ross posted here above...reading the countries... heh,heh,heh,heh,heh...why aint I suprised? :)

20 October, 2009 12:13  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Ouch. A very bad idea indeed.

20 October, 2009 12:35  
Blogger Ranch Chimp said...

One more quick point here.I have a video"Root of Evil" of Richard Dawkins ... who tries to sit down and have a balanced conversation with a former I believe NY Jew turned muslim...and I believe it was in Israel...this f'n raghead raises his voice to Dr.Dawkins and asked him why he/we dress our womnen like whores? (Damn do I wish I was with Dr.Dawkins when this sob told him that). I know if this sob was back in a place like Brooklyn and went into a place like Bed/Sty and called the fashion of women whore or whatever, he would have gotten probably a good NYC style ass whippin! They call us evil,infidel's,coward's,our women whore's,slut's and other name's, even in some countries in Europe...used it as defense and excuse to rape western women, and we want to kiss these MF's asses? Personally speaking...I love my women to dress like whores or whatever else they call them, looking at some of their women wrapped up like mummies instead of mommies...and looking like f'n mobile portable black tent's moving down the sidewalk's is enough to make me turn queer!

20 October, 2009 13:10  
Blogger TomCat said...

I also disagree with Obama's vote, but I don't consider it his worst decision, because the effect it will have on the real world is negligible.

20 October, 2009 15:19  
Blogger Zardoz said...

My country needs to abolish its "human rights" commissions (HRC's). HRC's have been used by Muslims in Canada to muzzle criticism of their religion; the tide is turning against the HRC's, finally. Let's hope we get rid of them completely.

Religion has had a free ride for far too long and it's time that atheists speak up and tell the religious nuts to leave their toys in the attic, come down to earth and behave like adult Human Beings. Freedom of speech and freedom of thought trump religious dogma any day!

The UN has become irrelevant and should be disbanded - it was a nice idea at the end of the Second World War, now it's just a farce. Witness the recent "Human Rights" circus in Geneva!

Welcome to the 21t Century...

20 October, 2009 18:14  
Blogger Infidel753 said...

Ross -- The listing of countries is very revealing. Being familiar with eastern Europe, I'm especially struck to see Russia and Ukraine on opposite sides.

RC -- Indeed, making concessions to those who arrogantly see themselves as our rightful masters cannot bring any good result. It will only fuel more arrogance.

TC -- In terms of its practical effects (which will be negligible), maybe not; but as a symbolic betrayal of the most fundamentally American and liberal values, this is unsurpassable.

Zardoz -- I know a little about Canada's HRCs and am glad to hear that the tide is turning against them.

The religious always twist things round and claim that any resistance to oppression by them constitutes oppression of them.

The UN is basically a very bizarre debating club which accepts only top-rank gentlemen and top-rank gangsters as members. Why anyone still mistakes it for some sort of nascent planetary government is beyond me.

20 October, 2009 20:04  
Blogger Infidel753 said...

As an afterthought, I can't help noticing that two countries I consider likely to be world leaders in the near future -- India and Brazil -- don't appear on either of Ross's lists. Both are democracies -- didn't they stand up to be counted on this?

20 October, 2009 20:21  
Anonymous Ross said...

India and Brazil abstained. The 2008 resolution was sponsored by Pakistan so that may have affected India's thinking. The abstentions were:

" Argentina, Armenia, Botswana, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Ecuador, Ghana, Guatemala, India, Japan, Kenya, Madagascar, Malawi, Mexico, Mongolia, Nepal, Nigeria, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Rwanda, Solomon Islands, United Republic of Tanzania."

The presence of Japan in that list is surprising.


21 October, 2009 02:28  
Blogger Infidel753 said...

The presence of Japan in that list is surprising.

It certainly is.

21 October, 2009 04:34  
Anonymous NickM said...

Amen to that Infidel!

Bang on the money.

The UN is a rogues charter.

And Ross, thanks for that breakdown. It speaks volumes does it not?

21 October, 2009 09:03  
Blogger Ranch Chimp said...

Dont believe this will be President Obama's "worst decision" he just got started...and still has 3 more year's to go ... I bet he will turn alot of head's. No I dont agree with him on some thing's...but as I posted...this was the reason since day one that I had so much support for this guy to be President... this guy is going to shake up the nation..and some abroad as well...you can bank on it! No doubt...this should be hilarious! :)

22 October, 2009 09:26  
Blogger Infidel753 said...

Even most early Obama supporters I read now seem to have recognized that he's getting a lot less done, and "shaking things up" (bringing change) a lot less, than Hillary would have done as President -- because he's constantly trying to reach out to the Republicans and compromise and be bipartisan rather than sticking up for real liberal principles.

This reprehensible UN vote is just more of the same, only with overseas Islamic religious nuts in place of the domestic Republican religious nuts.

22 October, 2009 10:18  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home