Does Obama Support Blasphemy Laws?

[Neon Genesis]

There was a blog column made in USA Today recently that claims Obama supports blasphemy laws but I'm not sure how accurate it is. I find it hard to believe Obama would support blasphemy laws when just a few months ago, he refused to participate in this UN meeting to discuss blasphemy laws to protest it. Does anyone know how reliable this article is or if Obama really is supporting blasphemy laws? Because so far this article has been the only one I've found discussing this and that makes me suspicious that nobody else is reporting it other than a blog column: http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2009/10/ ... laws-.html

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 the resolution was passed unanimously, European and developing countries made it clear that they remain at odds on the issue of protecting religions from criticism. It is viewed as a transparent bid to appeal to the "Muslim street" and our Arab allies, with the administration seeking greater coexistence through the curtailment of objectionable speech. 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.

In the resolution, the administration aligned itself with Egypt, which has long been criticized for prosecuting artists, activists and journalists for insulting Islam. For example, Egypt recently banned a journal that published respected poet Helmi Salem merely because one of his poems compared God to a villager who feeds ducks and milks cows. The Egyptian ambassador to the U.N., Hisham Badr, wasted no time in heralding the new consensus with the U.S. that "freedom of expression has been sometimes misused" and showing that the "true nature of this right" must yield government limitations.

[Jasen777]

It's just one of those pointless U.N. decelerations and not any sort of a law. Obama appearently supported a statement that people can take any way they want to (much like how he ran his campaign actually).

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/54982

US Tries to Break ‘Religious Defamation’ vs. Free Speech Deadlock at UN

(CNSNews.com) – Seeking to break a longstanding impasse between Western and Islamic nations over freedom of expression, the United States has piloted a finely-balanced resolution through the U.N.’s Human Rights Council which the two sides are choosing to interpret differently.

The resolution was adopted unanimously on Friday, the last day of a month-long session of the Geneva-based council which saw the U.S. actively participating as a member for the first time.

Free speech advocacy groups gave the move a cautious welcome, saying it marked an improvement but still posed difficulties.

The clash between freedom of expression and religious sensibilities, fueled by the furor over the newspaper cartoons satirizing Mohammed, has been one of the most consistently divisive issues in the HRC in its first three years of operation.

Critics have accused Islamic governments of trying to shield Islam from scrutiny and criticism in the non-Muslim world, in the same way as they do by enforcing blasphemy laws at home, often at the expense of Christians and other non-Muslim minorities.

The resolution stresses the importance of freedom of expression, calling it “one of the essential foundations of a democratic society” and urging countries to protect it.

It omits the controversial term “defamation of religion,” which the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) has successfully inserted into previous such measures at the U.N.

The resolution does, however, refer to “negative racial and religious stereotyping,” and condemns any advocacy of “religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.” It urges governments to “address and combat such incidents,” in line with their obligations under international law.

Reflecting the fragile compromise, delegates from both sides of the debate made it clear in their statements that they interpreted the key paragraph of the resolution – the one referring to religion – differently.

Speaking on behalf of the European Union, French representative Jean-Baptiste Mattei said the language about stereotyping referred to the stereotyping of individuals, not religions, ideologies or abstract values.

Human rights laws do not and should not protect belief systems, he said, stressing that the E.U. continued to reject the concept of defamation of religion.

But Pakistan’s Zamir Akram, speaking for the OIC, used the terms “negative stereotyping” and “defamation of religions” interchangeably, and said the phenomenon affected not only individuals but also religions and belief systems.

The resolution was sponsored jointly by the U.S. and Egypt, and was seen as part of the Obama administration’s push to improve relations with the Islamic world. In a speech in Cairo last June, President Obama called for a “new beginning” after “years of distrust.”

Egypt is an active member of the OIC, a strong proponent of the religious “defamation” drive and a country frequently accused of violating free speech.

Article 19, a free speech organization, called the vote on the resolution a breakthrough, given the tensions that have marked discussions on the issue at the U.N.’s human rights bodies.

Executive director Agnes Callamard noted in particular the omission of the term “defamation of religion,” although she said “religious stereotyping” was a vague concept that suggested that religions and religious ideas and symbols, rather than religious adherents, may be protected by international human rights law.

The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, a leading opponent of the religious “defamation” push, said the resolution passed Friday was a step in the right direction but still contained problematic language.

“This resolution will be seen as a victory if it is the death knell for the concept of ‘defamation of religions,’” said advocacy officer L. Bennett Graham. “But if it continues to provide international cover for overbroad anti-blasphemy laws around the world, it will only exacerbate the problem.”

Angela C. Wu, the international law director at the Washington-based public interest law firm, said it was time the U.N. abandoned language suggesting that religions, rather than people, deserve protection.

“We are disappointed the new freedom of expression resolution does not make this more explicit,” she said.