Comments on: US Supports Muslim Demands for Anti-Blasphemy Laws http://blog.darwincentral.org/2009/10/21/us-supports-muslim-demands-for-anti-blasphemy-laws/ Coniuratio compatiens Thu, 15 Jul 2010 04:02:59 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0 By: Gumlegs http://blog.darwincentral.org/2009/10/21/us-supports-muslim-demands-for-anti-blasphemy-laws/comment-page-1/#comment-32104 Gumlegs Sat, 31 Oct 2009 18:08:27 +0000 http://blog.darwincentral.org/?p=464#comment-32104 It would appear my fears are shared by others. Stuart Taylor writes, "It was nice to hear Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton say on October 26, "I strongly disagree" with Islamic countries seeking to censor free speech worldwide by making defamation of religion a crime under international law. "But watch what the Obama administration does, not just what it says. I'm not talking about its attacks on Fox News. 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." From here: http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/openingargument.php It's also discussed at The Volokh Conspiracy, http://volokh.com/2009/10/30/stuart-taylor-on-obama-administrations-endorsement-of-restricting-advocacy-of-religious-hatred-that-constitutes-incitement-to-hostility/ It would appear my fears are shared by others. Stuart Taylor writes, “It was nice to hear Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton say on October 26, “I strongly disagree” with Islamic countries seeking to censor free speech worldwide by making defamation of religion a crime under international law.

“But watch what the Obama administration does, not just what it says. I’m not talking about its attacks on Fox News. 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.”

From here: http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/openingargument.php

It’s also discussed at The Volokh Conspiracy, http://volokh.com/2009/10/30/stuart-taylor-on-obama-administrations-endorsement-of-restricting-advocacy-of-religious-hatred-that-constitutes-incitement-to-hostility/

]]> By: Mike http://blog.darwincentral.org/2009/10/21/us-supports-muslim-demands-for-anti-blasphemy-laws/comment-page-1/#comment-32091 Mike Thu, 29 Oct 2009 16:38:19 +0000 http://blog.darwincentral.org/?p=464#comment-32091 Yeah, me too. I would like to believe that the Obama administration is capable of admitting a mistake (if that's what it was) and changing its mind/stance/policy. Time will tell, I guess. Yeah, me too. I would like to believe that the Obama administration is capable of admitting a mistake (if that’s what it was) and changing its mind/stance/policy.

Time will tell, I guess.

]]> By: Gumlegs http://blog.darwincentral.org/2009/10/21/us-supports-muslim-demands-for-anti-blasphemy-laws/comment-page-1/#comment-32085 Gumlegs Wed, 28 Oct 2009 22:55:54 +0000 http://blog.darwincentral.org/?p=464#comment-32085 Update: Could this be a possbile source of the variation in reporting: "(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." From: http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/54982 I am hoping that your report, which is much more current than any of the ones I have, including the one above, represents a change in direction, and not a reflection of the differences in "interpretation." Update: Could this be a possbile source of the variation in reporting:

“(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.”

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

I am hoping that your report, which is much more current than any of the ones I have, including the one above, represents a change in direction, and not a reflection of the differences in “interpretation.”

]]> By: Gumlegs http://blog.darwincentral.org/2009/10/21/us-supports-muslim-demands-for-anti-blasphemy-laws/comment-page-1/#comment-32084 Gumlegs Wed, 28 Oct 2009 22:49:25 +0000 http://blog.darwincentral.org/?p=464#comment-32084 It certainly does, Mike. I shall look into this further. It could be that whoever represents the US at the UN body in question isn't on the same page as the Secretary of State. It wouldn't be the first time. It could also be that we've reversed course, which would be a good thing. It certainly does, Mike. I shall look into this further. It could be that whoever represents the US at the UN body in question isn’t on the same page as the Secretary of State. It wouldn’t be the first time. It could also be that we’ve reversed course, which would be a good thing.

]]> By: Mike http://blog.darwincentral.org/2009/10/21/us-supports-muslim-demands-for-anti-blasphemy-laws/comment-page-1/#comment-32081 Mike Wed, 28 Oct 2009 18:29:16 +0000 http://blog.darwincentral.org/?p=464#comment-32081 This from the AP seems to contradict the article above: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33486054/ns/world_news-world_faith/ This from the AP seems to contradict the article above:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33486054/ns/world_news-world_faith/

]]>