Religion 4 - The Global Blasphemy Law

As a keen reader of international media, I thought that I was aware of most things, but the following article, when it appeared in Forbes Magazine caught me on the hop.  It describes an attempt to create a global blasphemy law applicable to every nation.

US Supports UN Anti-Free Speech Measure 

While you were out scavenging the Walmart super sales or trying on trinkets at Tiffany or Cartier, your government has been quietly wrapping up a Christmas gift of its own: adoption of UN resolution 16/18. An initiative of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (formerly Organization of Islamic Conferences), the confederacy of 56 Islamic states, Resolution 16/18 seeks to limit speech that is viewed as “discriminatory” or which involves the “defamation of religion” – specifically that which can be viewed as “incitement to imminent violence.”  Whatever that means. 

Initially proposed in response to alleged discrimination against Muslims in the aftermath of 9/11 and in an effort to clamp down on anti-Muslim attacks in non-Muslim countries, Resolution 16/18 has been through a number of revisions over the years in order to make it palatable to American representatives concerned about U.S. Constitutional guarantees of free speech. Previous versions of the Resolution, which sought to criminalize blasphemous speech and the “defamation of religion,” were regularly rejected by the American delegation and by the US State Department, which insisted that limitations on speech – even speech deemed to be racist or blasphemous – were at odds with the Constitution. But this latest version, which includes the “incitement to imminent violence” phrase – that is, which criminalizes speech which incites violence against others on the basis of religion, race, or national origin – has succeeded in winning US approval – despite the fact that it (indirectly) places limitations as well on speech considered “blasphemous.” 

The background to all of this, unsurprisingly, is an effort on the part of Muslim countries to limit what they consider to be defamatory and blasphemous speech: criticism of Islam, say, or insulting the prophet Mohammed – which, as we’ve learned, can mean anything from drawing a cartoon or making a joke in a comedy sketch to burning a Koran. Such acts – according to some readings of the Koran and, indeed, according to law in some OIC countries – are punishable by death. Hence the riots that met the publication of the so-called “Danish cartoons,” the fatwa against Salman Rushdie, the murder of Theo van Gogh, and on and on. 

Deception.   Here’s where Resolution 16/18 gets tricky.  Because who, exactly, arbitrates what is “incitement to imminent violence”? Violence by whom? If drawing a caricature of the Prophet incites violence by Islamic radicals to the tune of riots, arson, and murder, all sanctioned by the IOC itself – then drawing such a caricature (or writing a book like the Satanic Verses) will now constitute a criminal act. And that is exactly what the OIC was aiming for. It is also in direct violation of the principles of Western democracy – and the First Amendment. (Though it is crucial to note that any resolution passed by the General Assembly remains non-binding, which makes you sort of wonder what the point of all this is, anyway.) 

Moreover, since many would claim that the persecution of blasphemers is mandated by their religion, conflicts emerge between guarantees of free expression and the guarantee of freedom of religion and the practice of one’s faith. In other words: your free speech allows you to insult my prophet: my freedom of religion compels me to kill you for it. 

What about “incitement to violence”?  Whose violence? 

This is how the Organization of the Islamic Cooperation plays “Gotcha. 

This is how the American government, however unwittingly, subsumes its own Constitution in deference to the demands of the Islamic state.  It’s a dangerous game. 

Yet in all of this, America has stood strong in its defense of free speech – even blasphemous, hateful, racist, sexist, Pentecostal, homophobic, and ignorant speech. We must continue to do so, no matter what pressures we may face. Because in the end, limiting our rights to self-expression and – above all – the questioning of religious beliefs – will never help to make the world more peaceful – or more free.

Abigail R. Esman

Quotation - Some see private enterprise as a predatory ....

Sir Winston Churchill

"Some see private enterprise as a predatory target to be shot, others as a cow to be milked, but few are those who see it as a sturdy horse pulling the wagon."

"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings;  the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries."

Food 6 - The Grocery Store

With ‘Food’ in the subject heading, one may expect a discussion about a delicious recipe or a wonderful restaurant but, this time I am going to discuss something interesting (at least for me) about grocery stores.

When I was young ... now, isn’t that the quintessential opening line.  Anyway, there was a time when superstores were nonexistent.  One had the luxury of individual butchers, bakers ... and candlestick makers ... with an emphasis on the plural.

One could visit a butcher and give detailed instructions about the required piece of meat, and this was the normal practice.  Once taken home and cooked, if the meat did not meet one’s satisfaction, a complaint would be made and, usually, the butcher would offer a bonus portion next time.

The same would occur at the fruit and vegetable shop.  If there was a rotten apple somewhere, an acknowledgement would be made and an acceptable recompense would be agreed at the return visit, much in favor of the customer.  It was considered very important to maintain good customer relations.

Today, there is usually just one superstore serving each neighborhood and, in my opinion, good customer relations have virtually disappeared.

For example, some time ago, I bought some chicken pieces from a well-known supermarket.  When the package was opened at home, it was necessary to hurriedly open a window to remove the terrible stench of putrid chicken.  Being angry, I immediately returned to the supermarket.  The manager, when confronted quite politely, said that I could choose a replacement package.  This done, I returned to the cashier, who pointed out that the new package had a higher cost (approximately 20 cents), and insisted that I pay the difference.  When the manager returned, I explained that the journey to return the original chicken had cost me more than 20 cents, he simply gazed at the ceiling and refused to negotiate further.  Therefore, I retrieved the putrid chicken, but cannot explain what I did with it.  It should be sufficient to say that, when discovered some days later, the cost of cleanup would have been much greater than 20 cents.  And I have never returned.

I recently bought some mouldy strawberries from a superstore and, to be honest, did not trouble myself with a return visit, knowing that I would simply be offered a similar container.  So much for Mexican strawberries.

My point here is the attitude of large supermarkets that believe that you are obliged to be a return customer, no matter what, because they are doing you a favor by establishing themselves in your neighborhood.  I find this unacceptable when all imperfect groceries could be returned to the wholesaler for a refund ... and probably a discount on the next order.

Just a final thought;  would they get more respect if, instead of marking dated produce with a ‘50% Off’ sticker, they sent it to the local Food Bank?

I wonder if I should name the aforementioned supermarket?