Re: Why is the Obama Administration Giving the OIC a Say in Our Right to Free Speech?

It would be a terrible mistake for the United States to take any
guidance or input from the OIC on setting—legally, culturally, or
otherwise—the acceptable boundaries of freedom of expression here.
---
tell that to the jews who have been working hard to enact hate speech
laws here like they have in other nations

On Dec 12, 3:03 pm, Travis <baconl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> **
>   [image: The Legal Project] <http://www.legal-project.org/>
> Please take a moment to visit and log in at the subscriber
> area<http://www.legal-project.org/list_edit.php>,
> and submit your city & country location. We will use this information in
> future to invite you to any events that we organize in your area.
> Why is the Obama Administration Giving the OIC a Say in Our Right to Free
> Speech?
>
> *by Ann Snyder  •  Dec 10, 2011 at 2:27 pm*
>
> *http://www.legal-project.org/blog/2011/12/why-is-the-obama-administra...
> *
>   Send <http://www.legal-project.org/article_send.php?id=1965>
> RSS<http://www.legal-project.org/rss.xml> Share:
> [image: Facebook]<http://www.facebook.com/share.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.legal-project.or...>
> [image:
> Twitter]<http://api.tweetmeme.com/share?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.legal-project.org...>
> [image:
> Google Buzz]<http://www.google.com/buzz/post?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.legal-project.or...>
> [image:
> Digg]<http://digg.com/submit?phase=2&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.legal-project.org......>
> [image:
> del.icio.us]<http://del.icio.us/post?v=4&noui&jump=close&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.lega...es=Starting+on+December+12th+in+Washington%2C+DC%2C+a+meeting+is+being+held+that+jeopardizes+freedom+of+speech+as+we+currently+understand+it+in+the+United+States.+The+Obama+Administration+has+invited+the+57-member+Organization+of+Islamic+Cooperation+%28%22OIC%2C%22...>
> [image:
> Google +1]<http://www.legal-project.org/facebook_like.php?ref_id=1965&ref_url=ht...>
> <http://www.legal-project.org/facebook_like.php?ref_id=1965&ref_url=ht...>
> Be
> the first of your friends to like this.
>
> Starting on December 12th in Washington, DC, a meeting is being held that
> jeopardizes freedom of speech as we currently understand it in the United
> States. The Obama Administration has invited the 57-member Organization of
> Islamic Cooperation ("OIC," formerly, The Organization of the Islamic
> Conference) to a meeting of "experts" to discuss the implementation of a UN
> resolution ostensibly targeting "religious intolerance." Now, even if by
> combating "religious intolerance" the resolution were just targeting *actual
> * violations of freedom of religion (READ: violating rights, not hurting
> feelings), it still should raise a few eyebrows that the OIC is behind the
> resolution and was invited as a partner to these meetings. The Jeddah-based
> OIC includes as its members such "champions" of human rights and religious
> freedom and tolerance as Saudi
> Arabia<http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=22&year=2011&country=8126>,
> Egypt<http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=363&year=2011&country=8031>,
> Pakistan<http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=22&year=2011&country=8108>,
> and Iran<http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=363&year=2011&country=8057>
> .
>
> But the catch is that the resolution isn't about protecting freedom of
> religion. It is about limiting *freedom of speech and expression*.
>
> For those not familiar with OIC's activities at the UN, for over a decade
> it has sponsored one speech-restrictive resolution after another aimed at
> criminalizing what it calls "defamation of religions." While the
> terminology has changed over time (from "defamation of Islam" to
> "defamation of religions" to "vilification of religions"), the goal has
> remained the same—to limit expression that the OIC deems critical of or
> offensive to Islam or Muslims (using a rather thin-shelled standard of what
> constitutes "offensive," to boot). (Click
> here<http://www.legal-project.org/issues/defamation-of-religions>for
> more background). Next week's meeting is about "implementing" that
> latest iteration of these resolutions, Resolution
> 16/18[1]<http://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&view=js&name=main,tlist&ver=Un3_dvu...>,
> which was introduced in and adopted by the Human Rights Council (HRC) at
> the UN last March.
>
> Resolution 16/18 differs from previous resolutions in a number of ways.
> Most notably, the term "defamation of religions" is absent. When the OIC
> decided not to introduce a "defamation of religions" provision during HRC's
> 16th session, the move was seen by
> many<http://www.uscirf.gov/news-room/press-releases/3570-uscirf-welcomes-m...>as
> a significant
> victory<http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/263450/anti-blasphemy-measure-...>—both
> as a defeat of the concept and the OIC in its campaign.
>
> But, as King Pyrrhus said, one more such victory, and we might soon be
> undone.
>
> Though the OIC ostensibly dropped "defamation of religions," some have
> warned that the OIC could
> reintroduce<http://volokh.com/2011/04/05/un-human-rights-council-drops-resolution...>the
> concept at a later date. Speech-restrictive resolutions could be
> introduced in other UN bodies, as well. Indeed, no sooner had the
> resolution been adopted than it was reported that diplomats from Muslim
> countries were threatening to
> resurrect<http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2011/03/25/142966.html>the
> concept. But, to understand the significance of the events at the HRC
> in March, as important as what the OIC *might* do in the future is what it
> believes it has achieved in the current resolution, which was adopted with
> the support of the US.
>
> In August 2011, the International Islamic News Agency (IINA), a news organ
> of the OIC, reported <http://iina.me/wp_en/?p=1004234> that Washington
> would host a meeting "to discuss" with the OIC "how to
> *implement*resolution no. 16/18
> *on combating defamation of religions*…" (*emphasis added*) and that the
> aim of this and further meetings was "developing a legal basis" for
> domestic and international laws "preventing *inciting hatred* resulting
> from the continued *defamation of religions*." (*emphasis added*). To be
> clear, the organization the Obama Administration invited to Washington
> still seems to think this resolution is about effectuating the anti-free
> speech concept, "defamation of religions." That is a major problem. Worse
> yet, by playing the name-game at the UN's HRC, the OIC has won several
> major victories for itself: praise by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton;
> an excellent piece of propaganda for its constituency, regarding the
> "West's" and specifically the US's apparent buy-in; a seat at the table in
> DC; and a foot-in-the door toward implementing speech restrictions via
> "hate speech" provisions. Cleverly played, OIC!
>
> Though the current resolution only explicitly calls for the *criminalization
> * of "incitement to imminent violence based on religion or belief," it
> "condemns…any advocacy of religious hatred against individuals that
> constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence." This
> latter part, with the exception of "against individuals," tracks ICCPR
> Article 20 and is similar in wording to various "hate
> speech<http://www.legal-project.org/issues/european-hate-speech-laws>"
> provisions adopted throughout Europe. Article 20 raised sufficient
> speech-related concerns that the US only signed onto the ICCPR with an
> explicit reservations clause to that article! Resolution 16/18 also "urges
> States to *take effective measures* as set forth in the present resolution,
> consistent with their obligations under international human rights law, *to
> address and combat* such incidents." (*emphasis added*) In short, it is a
> call to action for states to take steps to curtail certain kinds of
> expressive acts. What steps, if any, does the Obama Administration think
> the US should to take in response to the resolution's call to limit
> expression? That remains to be seen.
>
> The cosmetic change of dropping (for now) the language of "defamation of
> religions" has shifted the focus of the current resolution to "hate
> speech," though conceptually connecting the two ideas is not
> new<http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/264277/re-oic-vs-freedom-express...>.
> Some<http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/264113/oic-vs-freedom-expressi...>even
> see the language of Resolution 16/18 as an attempt to
> *broaden* the scope of existing "hate
> speech<http://www.legal-project.org/issues/european-hate-speech-laws>"
> provisions, and broadening is the last thing the already too expansive,
> speech-chilling "hate speech" provisions need. While the shift in language
> does not appear to have shifted the OIC's goal of restricting expression,
> the move was sufficient to sway Western allies (many of whom already have
> "hate speech" laws on the books) who could otherwise have been counted on
> to resist the OIC's assault on freedom of expression when promulgated under
> the bizarre concept "defamation of religions." But how can we expect our
> less speech-protective allies to resist the latest effort, if the US does
> not? And worse, how can we expect our allies to resist if it appears the US
> has bought into the idea that at least some of the OIC's speech-restrictive
> demands are legitimate?
>
> And bought in, it seems the Obama Administration has.
>
> As mentioned before, during a speech this summer at a meeting with the OIC,
> Secretary of State Clinton *actually*
> applauded<http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2011/07/168636.htm>the
> organization and described recent efforts as beginning "to overcome
> the
> false divide that pits religious sensitivities against freedom of
> expression." Note the word choice. She says "religious sensitivities" not
> "freedom of religion." Freedom of expression and freedom of religion *aren't
> * rights pitted against one another. They are complementary and
> interdependent rights. You need to protect one to fully protect the other.
> But, freedom of expression and so-called religious "sensitivities" (hurt
> feelings, offense, and the like), on the other hand, are often at odds *unless
> you limit expression*. Historically, it has been the OIC's position that
> setting limits on speech and expression is necessary and appropriate to
> protect religious sensitivities. Is that now the Obama Administration's
> position? In the same speech, Secretary Clinton offered plans to advance
> the resolution's goals, which include "counter[ing] offensive expression."
> One approach Clinton says "we" plan to employ is "us[ing] some
> old-fashioned techniques of peer pressure and shaming, so that people don't
> feel that they have the support to do what we abhor."
>
> The American people do not need our government deciding for us what is
> abhorrent or offensive. That and any *government* involvement in organized
> efforts to shame offensive expression in order to silence it run afoul of a
> *certain* provision<http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/>in
> the Bill of Rights. And, it is just that provision, the First
> Amendment,
> which will probably protect us *for now* from some of the more deleterious
> effects that might otherwise come from partnering with the OIC on matters
> related to speech.
>
> But the Obama Administration's support for speech-restrictive measures
> could have an effect on how courts interpret the outer contours of our
> First Amendment protections. (*See* Eugene Volokh's
> discussion<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eugene-volokh/is-the-obama-administrati...>of
> this concern in the context of the Obama Administration's decision to
> co-sponsor a speech-restrictive resolution with Egypt in 2009 and former LP
> Director Daniel Huff's
> remarks<http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/07/06/daniel-huff-amendment-decla...>in
> the context of the Administration's announcement of plans to partner
> with the OIC.) Even so, mere endorsement by the Obama Administration lends
> credibility to the OIC's position—and *none* is due.
>
> It would be a terrible mistake for the United States to take any guidance
> or input from the OIC on setting—legally, culturally, or otherwise—the
> acceptable boundaries of freedom of expression *here*. So open and so
> notorious has been the OIC's campaign to impose limitations on speech in
> the West, that the upcoming meeting cannot credibly pass muster under the
> guise of diplomacy. Complicity seems a more appropriate term. If that is
> not the Obama Administration's position, it should take immediate steps to
> clarify its policy and to express its commitment to preserving our
> fundamental and constitutionally protected right to freedom of speech.
> ------------------------------
>
> [1]<http://mail.google.com/mail/?ui=2&view=js&name=main,tlist&ver=Un3_dvu...>Resolution
> 16/18 is titled: "Combating intolerance, negative stereotyping
> and stigmatization of, and discrimination, incitement to violence and
> violence against, persons based on religion or belief"
>
> *This text may be reposted or forwarded so long as it is presented as an
> integral whole with complete information provided about its author, date,
> place of publication, and original URL.*
>
> To *subscribe* to this list, go tohttp://www.legal-project.org/list_subscribe.php
>
> *The Legal Project* <http://www.legal-project.org/>

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.