This is a Claytons post, the post you make when you're not really making a post. To understand the first sentence you will need to be of a similar age to me and have lived in the 1980s and probably in Australia to understand the Claytons reference, but just in case you can find out here. Besides it is time I produced something that was not about Manohara.
It seems that the UN has decided to up the ante on North Korea and expand the sanctions that are imposed on North Korea as response to a nuclear test last month.
There is no doubt that Kim Jong-il is a dictator and there is little doubt that he is responsible for starving his people. However, sanctions are only likely to further exacerbate the suffering of ordinary North Koreans and those less able to cope with further restrictions in the form of broader sanctions. My guess is that Kim and his family won't suffer because of the imposition of further sanctions.
Sanctions did not work in Iraq in terms of toppling another dictator, Saddam Hussein. Sanctions only saw greater suffering endured by the little people. This suffering was so bad that the UN was forced into a food for oil program to try and offset the harm the sanctions were doing to those Iraqis least able to cope.
I wonder is it possible to make an argument that UN sanctions are tantamount to a crime against humanity or a pre-cursor to genocide even though the actions of the UN are sanctioned by the members of that organization?
Just a thought!
Showing posts with label United Nations. Show all posts
Showing posts with label United Nations. Show all posts
10 June 2009
05 October 2008
Combating the Defamation of Religion
The UN General Assembly will soon vote on a non-binding resolution that restricts speech that offends religion and in particular offends Islam. Originally, the resolution was introduced by Pakistan and the Organization of the Islamic Conference via the Human Rights Council in 1999. The resolution only referred to Islam but was amended to include other religions in order that it pass and it has passed the Human Rights Council every year since 1999.
Having successfully negotiated the Human Rights Council, Yemen was sufficiently emboldened to introduce it to the General Assembly in 2005. The General Assembly will now have to vote on Resolution 62/145. Interestingly, the reason for the resolution is that there has been a campaign of defamation of religions and to address the issues of religious and ethnic profiling in the post September 11 world.
The resolution, if passed, will significantly impact upon free speech everywhere. This is in spite of the resolution being non-binding. The threat is significant enough that the US felt the need to make a submission to the Human Rights Council in Geneva. The US statement simply noted that defamation related laws have been regularly abused by governments in order to restrict the freedom of speech and other human rights.
The resolution is being colloquially referred to as the blasphemy resolution. A quick survey of the recent news on this paints a picture of the likely effect that the passage of this resolution might have of it were to be applied uniformly throughout member states.
Although it is more likely a boon for those governments that head up non-democratic states as a blasphemy resolution could certainly be used to stifle debate. In nations with a much longer, albeit not perfect democratic tradition, there are generally protections for the freedom of speech in place. In some countries like the US this protection is enshrined in the Constitution.
For example:
* Random House's decision not to publish a book, The Jewel of Medina, that used as a plot base the marriage of Aisha and Muhammad because it was deemed to be offensive to Muslims;
* A British teacher working in Sudan was sentenced to 15 days in jail because she allowed her students to name a teddy bear Muhammad;
* An Egyptian blogger that was sentenced to four years jail for a critique of Islam; and
* The murder of Theo van Gogh who released a film on the abuse of Muslim women.
It needs to be pointed out that this is an issue that has its roots in a much more distant past. In times prior to the thought that the UN might pass a resolution on this, Islamic countries took care of business themselves and issued fatwas such as the fatwa issued against Salman Rushdie for the Satanic Verses.
In many ways this is a resolution about creating a world full of fear and intimidation where people cannot speak their minds without fear of running afoul of a resolution such as this one. If anything it is going to increase the tension and stress on the pursuit of religious harmony, perhaps so much so that minority religions in majority Muslim countries will be victimized based on perceived slights.
What I wonder about is how you defame a religion. A religion is an idea or a set of ideas. Is it possible for an idea to have rights?
I am an advocate of free speech and the open and frank discussion and exchange of ideas. This resolution bothers me because it seems designed to provide the framework for the establishment for religious intolerance. Peace and tolerance go hand-in-hand but peace and intolerance do not.
Here's hoping that the resolution does not get the numbers to pass.
Having successfully negotiated the Human Rights Council, Yemen was sufficiently emboldened to introduce it to the General Assembly in 2005. The General Assembly will now have to vote on Resolution 62/145. Interestingly, the reason for the resolution is that there has been a campaign of defamation of religions and to address the issues of religious and ethnic profiling in the post September 11 world.
The resolution, if passed, will significantly impact upon free speech everywhere. This is in spite of the resolution being non-binding. The threat is significant enough that the US felt the need to make a submission to the Human Rights Council in Geneva. The US statement simply noted that defamation related laws have been regularly abused by governments in order to restrict the freedom of speech and other human rights.
The resolution is being colloquially referred to as the blasphemy resolution. A quick survey of the recent news on this paints a picture of the likely effect that the passage of this resolution might have of it were to be applied uniformly throughout member states.
Although it is more likely a boon for those governments that head up non-democratic states as a blasphemy resolution could certainly be used to stifle debate. In nations with a much longer, albeit not perfect democratic tradition, there are generally protections for the freedom of speech in place. In some countries like the US this protection is enshrined in the Constitution.
For example:
* Random House's decision not to publish a book, The Jewel of Medina, that used as a plot base the marriage of Aisha and Muhammad because it was deemed to be offensive to Muslims;
* A British teacher working in Sudan was sentenced to 15 days in jail because she allowed her students to name a teddy bear Muhammad;
* An Egyptian blogger that was sentenced to four years jail for a critique of Islam; and
* The murder of Theo van Gogh who released a film on the abuse of Muslim women.
It needs to be pointed out that this is an issue that has its roots in a much more distant past. In times prior to the thought that the UN might pass a resolution on this, Islamic countries took care of business themselves and issued fatwas such as the fatwa issued against Salman Rushdie for the Satanic Verses.
In many ways this is a resolution about creating a world full of fear and intimidation where people cannot speak their minds without fear of running afoul of a resolution such as this one. If anything it is going to increase the tension and stress on the pursuit of religious harmony, perhaps so much so that minority religions in majority Muslim countries will be victimized based on perceived slights.
What I wonder about is how you defame a religion. A religion is an idea or a set of ideas. Is it possible for an idea to have rights?
I am an advocate of free speech and the open and frank discussion and exchange of ideas. This resolution bothers me because it seems designed to provide the framework for the establishment for religious intolerance. Peace and tolerance go hand-in-hand but peace and intolerance do not.
Here's hoping that the resolution does not get the numbers to pass.
02 July 2008
Peace
The pursuit of peace and progress cannot end in a few years in either victory or defeat. The pursuit of peace and progress, with its trials and its errors, its successes and its setbacks, can never be relaxed and never abandoned.
01 July 2008
Alexander Downer Quits
I guess it is no fun being in opposition after a reign as Australia's longest serving Foreign Minister. Alexander Downer has pulled the plug on a rather long and somewhat distinguished political career. There are, as in any long career, a couple of moments that could have run better that might have seen him as Prime Minister rather than Foreign Minister. Unfortunately, the comment that undid him and saw him dumped as Liberal Leader was a stupid attempt at humour through a play on words.
The former Foreign Minister is moving into a part-time United Nations role as Special Envoy for Cyprus. The major role here is thought to be an effort to revive the peace process between the Greeks and the Turks over Cyprus.
This means that there will be a need for a by-election in his seat of Mayo in the Adelaide Hills. This has always been a pretty safe Liberal seat and it is currently held by 7.1%. This is after a swing of 6.5% against Downer at the last election. However, with the recent results in the Gippsland by-election showing a swing away from Labor, it is expected that this will become a much safer Liberal seat at the by-election.
Labor is even considering the option of not running a candidate which suggests that they are a little bit concerned about being humiliated as the electorate has had a little time to re-evaluate their decision to elect a Labor government.
Anyway, good luck to the fella!
07 March 2008
Religious Freedom in Indonesia
Religious freedom in Indonesia or more specifically the lack of it is about to garner some attention at the United Nations Human Rights Council Plenary session currently underway in Geneva. I have written on religious freedom and intolerance in Indonesia previously so feel free to search through the blog to find these postings (if you're interested). However, it is clear that the issue of religious freedom is going to be an issue that at some point in time the Indonesian government is going to have to address. If for no other reason than maintaining social harmony or more specifically to be true to the national motto of "unity in diversity".
Simply, this concept of unity in diversity that is enshrined in the State ideology of 'Pancasila' or the Five Principles is not something that the Indonesian government seems to give much weight to. The first of these principles is the belief in a supreme God. Too bad for any animist tree or mountain or big stone worshippers. Unless of course you can characterize a tree as a supreme God -- good question! The first principle here seems to be tailor-made for the development and expansion of sects with slightly different sets of beliefs.
One of the bigger religious tolerance or intolerance issues to arise has been with regard to the Ahmadiyah sect. This is an Islamic sect that had slightly different interpretations regarding who was in fact the last prophet of Islam. Obviously, this is sure to be controversial but as the Indonesian Council of Ulemas (MUI) also determined in a fatwa it issued, ultimately heretical! The issue of the fatwa led to some outbursts of communal violence and attacks against sect members.
The issue here is whether or not the Indonesian Constitution guarantees freedom of religion. The simple answer here is that it does -- yes! Although arguments can be made that despite the guarantee there are no real protective mechanisms built into ensure that this freedom to practice one's faith is maintained in a practical sense. So, despite the probable repercussions of the action it must take, the State needs to come out and say that with all due respect to the MUI (usually translated as no respect at all) that Ahmadiyah and its followers have a constitutional right to practice their faith. However, and somewhat unfortunately, the government decided to accept the MUI interpretation and called in the attack dogs and put the sect under surveillance.
Heresy is a crime in Indonesia, at least in the sense that a creative interpretation of the Criminal Code provisions, Article 156(a) for example, would allow cases to be brought before courts where a different interpretation of the faith is developed and practiced.
Bottom line -- When will the government stand up and be counted on this argument is any one's guess. But the most likely scenario would be not before there was much more widespread violence involved and a real risk to the stability of the broader Indonesian community.
When it is all said and done Indonesia is still a country that burns textbooks that offer a different view of accepted national history, such as the 1965 coup attempt, so if you cannot face your past the ability to face your future is also in question! But, alas, this is a post for another time.
Simply, this concept of unity in diversity that is enshrined in the State ideology of 'Pancasila' or the Five Principles is not something that the Indonesian government seems to give much weight to. The first of these principles is the belief in a supreme God. Too bad for any animist tree or mountain or big stone worshippers. Unless of course you can characterize a tree as a supreme God -- good question! The first principle here seems to be tailor-made for the development and expansion of sects with slightly different sets of beliefs.
One of the bigger religious tolerance or intolerance issues to arise has been with regard to the Ahmadiyah sect. This is an Islamic sect that had slightly different interpretations regarding who was in fact the last prophet of Islam. Obviously, this is sure to be controversial but as the Indonesian Council of Ulemas (MUI) also determined in a fatwa it issued, ultimately heretical! The issue of the fatwa led to some outbursts of communal violence and attacks against sect members.
The issue here is whether or not the Indonesian Constitution guarantees freedom of religion. The simple answer here is that it does -- yes! Although arguments can be made that despite the guarantee there are no real protective mechanisms built into ensure that this freedom to practice one's faith is maintained in a practical sense. So, despite the probable repercussions of the action it must take, the State needs to come out and say that with all due respect to the MUI (usually translated as no respect at all) that Ahmadiyah and its followers have a constitutional right to practice their faith. However, and somewhat unfortunately, the government decided to accept the MUI interpretation and called in the attack dogs and put the sect under surveillance.
Heresy is a crime in Indonesia, at least in the sense that a creative interpretation of the Criminal Code provisions, Article 156(a) for example, would allow cases to be brought before courts where a different interpretation of the faith is developed and practiced.
Bottom line -- When will the government stand up and be counted on this argument is any one's guess. But the most likely scenario would be not before there was much more widespread violence involved and a real risk to the stability of the broader Indonesian community.
When it is all said and done Indonesia is still a country that burns textbooks that offer a different view of accepted national history, such as the 1965 coup attempt, so if you cannot face your past the ability to face your future is also in question! But, alas, this is a post for another time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)