U.N. Human Rights Council Votes to Prevent Free Speech

It would seem now that Islam and the Human Rights Council is legitimately associated with the violations of free speech.

Muslim countries have been pressing for a United Nations Human Rights Council resolution calling on nations around the world to pass laws criminalizing the alleged “defamation” of religion – specifically Islam.

This week the Council passed the resolution.

A simple majority of 23 members of the 47-nation Human Rights Council voted in favor of the resolution. Eleven mostly Western nations opposed it and 13 countries abstained. "It is individuals who have rights and not religions," said Canadian diplomat Terry Cormier. Canada's criticism was echoed by European Union countries, all of which voted against the proposal.

"Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism," the resolution said. It would seem now that Islam and the Human Rights Council is legitimately associated with the violations of free speech.

The United States did not vote on the resolution because it is not a member of the council. The Bush administration announced it was virtually giving up on the body and would participate in debates only if absolutely necessary because of the council's anti-Israel statements and its failure to act on abuses in Sudan and elsewhere.

The proposal by Pakistan had drawn strong criticism from free-speech campaigners and liberal democracies. The resolution urges states to provide "protection against acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from defamation of religions and incitement to religious hatred in general."

Muslim nations have argued that religions, in particular Islam, must be shielded from criticism in the media and other areas of public life. They cited cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad as an example of unacceptable free speech.

But the "laws" or cannons of one religion should not be binding on people of other faiths, nor even upon those within the faith who disagree. In many cases, however, Muslim Shura, a form of social rules backed up by, in many cases, Sharia Law, forces other Muslims to adhere to the wishes of the community. http://www.alhewar.com/SadekShura.htm

India, which normally votes along with the council's majority of developing nations, abstained in protest at the fact that Islam was the only religion specifically named as deserving protection.

Efforts by the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) have paid off in getting such a resolution passed – and we can count on the OIC to continue its global campaign to criminalize free speech that allegedly “defames” Islam.

Condensed and edited from
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iRHXSIoJJdXQpG3kPrRO2LWMnWTAD975SKN01 and http://www.actforamerica.org/index.php/learn/recent-news

The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists is the ^sm of
The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists LLC.
The Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism ^tm,
The Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism Blogger ©,
Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism Blogger Extra ©, and

The Metaphysical Naturalist ©,

are the educational arms of the LLC and are:

© 2008-2009 by Curtis Edward Clark and Naturalist Academy Publishing ^tm
mailto:freeassemblage@gmail.com

Obama Ready to Trade Away American Industry

The "economic and social consequences" will primarily be against Annex I parties, of which the U.S. is the biggest

"A United Nations document on "climate change" that will be distributed to a major environmental conclave next week envisions a huge reordering of the world economy, likely involving trillions of dollars in wealth transfer, millions of job losses and gains, new taxes, industrial relocations, new tariffs and subsidies, and complicated payments for greenhouse gas abatement schemes and carbon taxes — all under the supervision of the world body." FOX

According to this document, which I am reading at http://www.foxnews.com/projects/pdf/032709_informationnote.pdf , its effects are "to limit the scope" under the supervision of the world body as it "7.(a) Considers only those tools, policies and measures that might be taken by Annex I parties for the purpose of effectively addressing climate change;"

Why is this paragraph of vital importance? Because the United States is one of the Annex I Parties. [see list of all parties. http://unfccc.int/parties_and_observers/parties/annex_i/items/2774.php]

On the other hand, who are those "tools, policies and measures" intended to benefit? 7 (c) says they "Focus primarily, but not exclusively, on those consequences that affect non-Annex Parties."

What does this mean? It means what Fox says it mean in the first paragraph above, and that "that industrialized countries will likely have to [ ] implement the Copenhagen Accord, the successor to the Kyoto Treaty, after it is negotiated and signed by December 2009. The Obama administration has said it supports the treaty process if, in the words of a U.S. State Department spokesman, it can come up with an 'effective framework' for dealing with global warming."

In its evasive, double-speak/non-speak method of covering up what it really means, the document says in paragraph 13 that the plan "calls for enhanced national/international action on mitigation of climate change, including the consideration of economic and social consequences of response measures."

"Enhanced action" means what---that there is already action that is not satisfactory to the non-Annex I parties? And since the document already says it is focused primarily on those non-Annex I parties, the "consideration of economic and social consequences" will primarily be against Annex I parties.

This is in accord with President Obama's "cap and trade" efforts at controlling carbon emissions. The administration is ready to go into this European summit willing and able to sign an accord that by some accounts will hurt the U.S. worse than the Kyoto treaty would have.

On the plus side for free-market advocates and advocates of individual sovereignty, there is this headline: "More Than 650 International Scientists Dissent Over Man-Made Global Warming Claims." http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=2158072E-802A-23AD-45F0-274616DB87E6

More on this next week, after I have had time to read the document further, and read other reviews. The non-committalistic language could mean anything the U.N. negotiators want it to mean. That is why is so vague. But by the time of the signing in December, it won't be vague at all.

Or, quite possibly it will remain vague so that the "world body" can do as it pleases with the redistribution of the wealth of the world and the means of production. That is its ultimate goal.

The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists is the ^sm of
The Free Assemblage of Metaphysical Naturalists LLC.
The Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism ^tm,
The Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism Blogger ©,
Academy of Metaphysical Naturalism Blogger Extra ©, and

The Metaphysical Naturalist ©,

are the educational arms of the LLC and are:

© 2008-2009 by Curtis Edward Clark and Naturalist Academy Publishing ^tm
mailto:freeassemblage@gmail.com