UN chief: Free speech must be protected, unless it provokes or humiliates someone’s beliefs

posted at 9:03 pm on September 19, 2012 by Allahpundit

Alarming, not because you or I take this stooge seriously but because lots of dopey liberals do, and not just here in the U.S. At a moment when the left’s dimmer lights are taking a second look at blasphemy laws, it’s repulsive that a guy charged with defending human rights would equivocate on speech. But not surprising: The Organization of the Islamic Conference has used the UN for years as a platform to push anti-blasphemy resolutions. That’s textbook Islamism, exploiting an ostensibly liberal institution to advance illiberal goals. Say what you want about Ban, but he’s speaking for an awful lot of his constituents here.

“Freedoms of expression should be and must be guaranteed and protected, when they are used for common justice, common purpose,” Ban told a news conference.

“When some people use this freedom of expression to provoke or humiliate some others’ values and beliefs, then this cannot be protected in such a way.”

“My position is that freedom of expression, while it is a fundamental right and privilege, should not be abused by such people, by such a disgraceful and shameful act,” he said.

Just once, I’d like someone taking this position to say clearly, “I don’t believe in free speech.” Notice how they never do that? Even when they’re carving out huge chunks of their principles to protect the tender sensibilities of rioting barbarians, they’re always careful to say that they believe in a baseline right of free expression. Either that’s cognitive dissonance at work or, somehow, they honestly can’t see the contradiction. A little reality check from liberal atheist Sam Harris:

The contagion of moral cowardice [after the Mohammed movie broke into the news] followed its usual course, wherein liberal journalists and pundits began to reconsider our most basic freedoms in light of the sadomasochistic fury known as “religious sensitivity” among Muslims. Contributors to The New York Times and NPR spoke of the need to find a balance between free speech and freedom of religion—as though the latter could possibly be infringed by a YouTube video. As predictable as Muslim bullying has become, the moral confusion of secular liberals appears to be part of the same clockwork…

What exactly was in the film? Who made it? What were their motives? Was Muhammad really depicted? Was that a Qur’an burning, or some other book? Questions of this kind are obscene. Here is where the line must be drawn and defended without apology: We are free to burn the Qur’an or any other book, and to criticize Muhammad or any other human being. Let no one forget it…

The freedom to think out loud on certain topics, without fear of being hounded into hiding or killed, has already been lost. And the only forces on earth that can recover it are strong, secular governments that will face down charges of blasphemy with scorn. No apologies necessary. Muslims must learn that if they make belligerent and fanatical claims upon the tolerance of free societies, they will meet the limits of that tolerance.

Emphasis mine. In other news today, our friends in Pakistan declared Friday to be a national day of protest and the Organization of the Islamic Conference is mobilizing to agree on an “action plan” against blasphemy. Meanwhile, in France, the satirical paper Charlie Hebdo is being protected by riot police tonight because it dared to publish new Mohammed cartoons today. And in spite of it all, the head of the UN is busy appeasing rioters by reassuring them that there’s no right to insult their faith. Perfect.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Same old crap, different singers.

These people wanting global control will never give up. This is all part of the PROJECT 21 crapola to make speech against Islam and whatever the preferred religion of the elitists illegal.

….and the DOTUS and his minions in Congress are shuffling us right into this where we will have no choice but to accept global control over our sovereignty.

psssssst, American voter……..you’re a slave of the one that holds your debt.

S-L-A-V-E

PappyD61 on September 19, 2012 at 9:31 PM

The thing that sucks about this particular brand of gangsters is that we not only stand to lose our rights, but they won’t let us buy stock in what they’re doing and profit as well…seen what the SOB’s are paying out in interest on savings and CDs lately? I seem to remember once upon a time that you could get 3% interest on a Christmas club savings account. We’re just scum as far as they’re concerned.

They gamble and lose on mortgage derivatives-they rob us to cover their losses.

They give us debt disguised as money, and walk away with our real wealth that their enforcers in the IRS extort from us.

They switch tungsten for gold.

They “lose” billions and have no idea where it went…and get investigated by former co-workers.

But this election is crucial because if our guy wins, all this will come to a screeching halt. Just kidding.

Dr. ZhivBlago on September 19, 2012 at 9:52 PM

The generals have been leading the way. They make Obama look like a piker.

VorDaj on September 19, 2012 at 9:47 PM

The problem is with the promotion system. Flag officers are essentially political appointees not real leaders.

Clinton wanted to legitimize gays in the military and Colin Powell (as much as I despise him) told Clinton that he would have to deal with an en-masse resignation of the Joint Chiefs of Staff if he did it. Don’t Ask/Don’t Tell was the compromise.

All those Generals and Admirals are more concerned with their own careers than the well-being of the military. Patreus is an outstanding example. Not a terrible human being but one willing to remain mute about policy in Afghanistan to get a job at the CIA.

Happy Nomad on September 19, 2012 at 9:56 PM

so, no one should have to suffer even hearing christians merely state what they believe or suffer them the right to object to government enforced practices that are in contradiction to their morals but every non-muslim must submit to islam and dare not critique or find morally objectionable any of the human rights violations committed in its name?

so- also one is free to say anything outrageous, offensive about any other god, goddess, or set of religious beliefs except islam?

mittens on September 19, 2012 at 10:00 PM

When I think of free speech Larry Flynt comes to mind
Talk about over sensitive .

MrMoe on September 19, 2012 at 10:03 PM

Socialism offends me. So should socialists be arrested for speaking?

wildcat72 on September 19, 2012 at 10:06 PM

UN chief: Free speech must be protected, unless it provokes or humiliates someone’s beliefs

I have no problem with that.

The problem is that I’m just a little bit absolutely positive that this isn’t what these people are advocating. What they’re advocating is the violation of the first rule of civilization: Let the punishment fit the crime.

If somebody provokes and humiliates you, then you have the right to provoke and humiliate them. Period.

You DON’T have the right to put them in a imprison, or torture or kill them. That constitutes barbarism.

Which part of this is complicated to the liberal brain?

logis on September 19, 2012 at 10:09 PM

Just heard a news flash that Pakistan is threatening to close all US installations if we don’t apologize.

OK with me…and we’ll take our dollars with us you f’ing greedy ignorant barbarians.

ccrosby on September 19, 2012 at 10:10 PM

Comments about a so-called “wife” of Christ referenced in a document proven to be hundreds of years after Christ, and referencing His name by some “shorthand” name.

Expecting Christians to riot and burn buildings in 3… 2… 1 – not!

But the UN is just as sensitive to insults against Christianity? No.

You knew the answer to that question.

And why? You know the answer to that question also.

IrishEyes on September 19, 2012 at 10:13 PM

“Freedoms of expression should be and must be guaranteed and protected, when they are used for common justice, common purpose,” Ban told a news conference.

“When some people use this freedom of expression to provoke or humiliate some others’ values and beliefs, then this cannot be protected in such a way.”

I find Ban’s last paragraph to be an overt and public attempt to provoke Americans and to humiliate our most closely held beliefs, beliefs that this nation was founded upon, to be highly offensive.

I want him punished. Arrested. Thrown out of the country.

mbecker908 on September 19, 2012 at 10:14 PM

of course advocating chopping off blasphemers heads,gang raping non-muslim, western women, dropping walls on homosexuals in order to execute them, seeking to slay any and all infidels for merely being infidels, committing genocide against your fellow muslims who are black, and placing bounties on the heads of apostates of islam for their lack of belief in allah- none of that is humiliating in any sense of the word nor is any of it provocative in any manner except when non-muslims do such things then they are crimes against humanity.

mittens on September 19, 2012 at 10:17 PM

Ban Ki-moon:

“My position is that freedom of expression, while it is a fundamental right and privilege…”

A right and a priviledge? Seriously? The Secretary-General of the United Nations doesn’t know the difference between a right and a privilege? Apparently doesn’t even know the definition of a right?

It would be like studying a retarded bug under a microscope, except he wants to allow governments to prosecute criminal charges against me if I say something he doesn’t agree with.

jaime on September 19, 2012 at 10:25 PM

Is “Death to America ” considered procative?
If so will Egypt arrest the protesters?

barnone on September 19, 2012 at 10:27 PM

What a disgrace the U.N. is..No blasphemy laws outside of Pakistan!!

sadsushi on September 19, 2012 at 10:27 PM

So if a bunch of Evangelical Christians from Tennessee drove up to New York City and opened fire on a bunch of Left wing hipsters at the Museum of Modern Art, in order to express their outrage over Andres Serrano’s “Piss Christ” exhibit, Lefties would respond by calling for Serrano’s arrest for inciting violence?

ardenenoch on September 19, 2012 at 10:40 PM

“When some people use this freedom of expression to provoke or humiliate some others’ values and beliefs…”

An incredibly stupid statement from someone who should be smart. Obviously all kinds of critical speech can be claimed to be provocative & humiliating to someone who then calls for the speaker’s arrest.

Come to think of it, the text of the Qu’ran, claiming infidels like me are the worst of creatures and hell-bound, is extremely provocative and certainly humiliating to my values & beliefs. I’m really very hurt! I trust this moron will seek to ban this awful, nasty book!

Chessplayer on September 19, 2012 at 10:48 PM

There was a point to the United Nations after WWII, with two superpowers in a struggle over the world who did not speak to each other directly. The UN provided a forum for communication to avoid misunderstandings which could lead to all-out war, and so it was worth having all the other also-ran countries from Europe and Asia, and every third-rate despot, thief, criminal, and assorted miscreants from around the world as buffers. It helped keep the peace.

After Nixon’s “detente” initiative opened communications with the USSR beyond the Red Phone, the UN swiftly lost any usefulness beyond a place for the relatives and cronies of every tinpot regime in the world to come to New York and party down on their starving peoples’ money and park illegally.

It’s long past time to bid them a fond farewell.

Adjoran on September 19, 2012 at 10:57 PM

Freedom of speech is, well … it’s teh awesome.

And I wish more people would toot Free Speech’s horn. It’s a sine qua non of freedom. So when people talk about restricting it … they mean to have their hands around our throats.

America is great because we are free. Without freedom of speech, we wouldn’t be free, and so … we wouldn’t be great. So, this seems important to me!!

Paul-Cincy on September 19, 2012 at 11:00 PM

The Organization of the Islamic Conference has used the UN for years as a platform to push anti-blasphemy resolutions.

Anti-blasphemy resolutions. Aka….Sharia Law.

lynncgb on September 19, 2012 at 11:17 PM

I find Ban’s speech to be offense and provocative and it should be banned.

By his own definition, he must be silenced.

profitsbeard on September 19, 2012 at 11:20 PM

The U.N. is still around?

vcferlita on September 19, 2012 at 11:23 PM

“When some people use this freedom of expression to provoke or humiliate some others’ values and beliefs, then this cannot be protected in such a way.”

Is Ban typically this stupid?

lynncgb on September 19, 2012 at 11:26 PM

I just want to remind everyone that Mohammed was a paedophile. I can see why the islamoanimals would be so sensitive.

thuja on September 20, 2012 at 12:02 AM

The UN chief just offended and humiliated my beliefs!

I want redress for my hurt feelings!

Sherman1864 on September 20, 2012 at 1:00 AM

I love my country.

When someone says, “Death to America” that provokes and/or humiliates my values and beliefs.

Does that mean we can behead them?

JohnD13 on September 20, 2012 at 2:08 AM

That’s idiotic.

Though it’s been said a million times, it bears repeating:

Controversial speech is the very speech that needs protection. No one tries to ban noncontroversial speech, speech used for “common justice, common purpose.”

Jingo95 on September 20, 2012 at 2:45 AM

Our leaders may not want to accept it and they may not even know it but we are in a holy war. It doesn’t take two sides to fight a holy war. It only takes one. Right now the Islamists have declared a holy war. They will not rest, they will not make peace until their religion covers the globe. this has been their goal since the religion was founded. Secularists don’t think in such terms but its a holy war we are in and it will lead to WW3.

Until our leaders fight this holy war for what it is. We will continue to retreat until we not only have no freedoms left for which to defend but we will have no choice.

The very best way to fight this holy war at this point in time is ironically enough with free speech and the give and take of competing ideas. By battling this out in the town squares and schools in over the airwaves we can win this fight without and need for armies or “war”. But the more our leaders retreat and try to appease these people the mor elikely we are to come to real blows worldwide. Islamists know they can’t win the war of ideas. Their religion can’t stand up to mockery, and indepth discussions. Thus they go on rampages instead to shutr us up. And I’m afriad our leaders are so yellow bellied the Islamists are winning.

unseen on September 20, 2012 at 2:58 AM

We could use the UN’s help next May 5 when the mexicans start their attacks on the US and wanting to take back parts for Mexico. The blue helmets will really put a beat down on them and make them go back to Mexico! I’m really sure that will happen!! ///

hip shot on September 20, 2012 at 5:26 AM

Is Ban typically this stupid?

lynncgb on September 19, 2012 at 11:26 PM

He was a man of some depth and accomplishment, then he got the UN gig and had to flush it all away.

Adjoran on September 20, 2012 at 6:20 AM

WE WON’T BE SILENCED.
I will always be skeptical of everything the UN says & does.

Intentionally desecrated flags, disrespectful effigies of our leaders/citizens used in violent protests, crucifix soaking in urine, fecal matter on the virgin Mary, killing the unborn or defenseless, anything the Phelps loons do, & Bill Maher are all offensive to me and/or the people I know & love.

However, the overwhelming majority of my fellow citizens are mature rational adults who don’t threaten violence, but protest in peace. Which is something that most in UN really don’t seem to understand, let alone appreciate.
With that, I wouldn’t trade the schizophrenic world view of leftists for all the gold in the world.

kregg on September 20, 2012 at 6:25 AM

Take a look at the disgusting video of the President of the European Parliament criticizing the film dumping on free speech and Western values.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkzPPk79ZZI&feature=player_embedded

Look at the content faces of our future lords and masters as the dhimmi does his duty!

Antivenin on September 20, 2012 at 7:21 AM

There was a point to the United Nations after WWII, with two superpowers in a struggle over the world who did not speak to each other directly. Adjoran on September 19, 2012 at 10:57 PM

Alger Hiss presided over the organizing conferences held in San Francisco.

Care to revise your statement about what the point of the UN was?

Akzed on September 20, 2012 at 8:58 AM

Who gets to decide when speech provokes or humiliates?

Rhetoric from liberals prokes me just about every minute of every day.

I think liberals calling consevatives evil, cruel, wanting to kill grandma and starve children, Nazi, racists, and I’d need a roll of toilet paper to list them all–is both provocative and humiliating.

Liberals think the same about conservatives. Atheists hate Christian. Some minorities hate some majorities and vice versa.

Try Googling Muslim videos about Jews. Just make sure you have your vomit bag handy

Has Mr. Ban denounced Iran’s call to elimante Israel from the face of the Earth? Crickets. Perhaps he doesn’t find that provocative.

Does Mr. Ban think Muslims calling for jihad provocative? Crickets.

Where do you draw the line?

And how do you determine if someone was provoked or humiliated unintentionally?

And what if the person speaking doesn’t consider his words to be provocative or humiliating?

Mr. Ban is an excellent example of all the reasons the US needs to abandon the UN. It’s a completely worthless and corrupt organization trying to implement world governance for its own power and benefit.

The UN has never solved a real problem.

Their sanctions don’t work (because everyone is still dealing with the targetted countries on the black market.

The UN Peacekeeping forces worthless. A platon of them couldn’t win a pillow fight with a 5 year old girl.

The studies and science sponsored by the UN is worthless. It little more than a form of political science where the outcome is predetermined, the people to do the studies are selected for their politically correct positions, and then the data and computer models are tuned to give the desired political results.

Time to declare the UN experiment a failure and move on.

BMF on September 20, 2012 at 9:59 AM

Chris Muir went full Danish today with his Day By Day cartoon. I love it!

“Freedoms of expression should be and must be guaranteed and protected, when they are used for common justice, common purpose,” Ban told a news conference.
“When some people use this freedom of expression to provoke or humiliate some others’ values and beliefs, then this cannot be protected in such a way.”

Whose justice, Ban? Whose purpose? Yours? The communists’? The islamists’? Certainly not those crazy Tea Partiers’? Obama and his ilk try to humiliate my values and beliefs every day. Does this mean they’re legitimate targets of the sort of reaction we saw in Benghazi?

GWB on September 20, 2012 at 10:10 AM

The United Nations assault on my 2nd Amendment rights is offensive to myself and many others. STFU, or get out of New York!

CiLH1 on September 20, 2012 at 10:12 AM

I don’t expect much from the United Nations, but I would have expected better than this idiotic remark.

YiZhangZhe on September 20, 2012 at 10:41 AM

Obama “Owns the U.S.A.”

JAYTBMF on September 20, 2012 at 10:47 AM

At least Obama thinks he owns the Country.

JAYTBMF on September 20, 2012 at 10:51 AM

If Islam were willing to treat other religions in the manner it demands others treat Islam, then there would be no problem.

krome on September 20, 2012 at 1:41 PM

If Islam were willing to treat other religions in the manner it demands others treat Islam, then there would be no problem.

krome on September 20, 2012 at 1:41 PM

If Islam had never existed, there would still be a huge problem with Mr Ban’s remarks; even if we make allowance for the fact that English is not his first language, what he said is still idiotic, clueless, thoughtless, waffle.

YiZhangZhe on September 20, 2012 at 3:47 PM

Comment pages: 1 2