Religious Differences, or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the UN

Have you heard about the hot new religion around town? It's all the rage with the tween girls. Known affectionately as Cullenism, Cullenists hold that Edward Cullen, the star of the hit novel Twilight, and his family are real, and Stephanie Meyer, the author, is the best author in all time. Also, good Cullenists get to spend eternity with the Cullenists, while those who are bad in life get sent to Jame's Cave. Doesn't that sound just lovely?1

{/sarcasm}

Lest you be too quick to judge Cullenism harshly, keep in mind UN Human Rights Resolution 2002/9, passed just this last Friday. While the majority of the Resolution is beyond reproach, recognizing the importance of stopping hate crimes and discrimination based on religion, one chilling line remains:

"8. Encourages States, within their respective constitutional systems, to provide adequate protection against all human rights violations resulting from defamation of religions and to take all possible measures to promote tolerance and respect for all religions and their value systems;"

What exactly constitutes defamation of religion? And why is Islam so prominently identified as the major victim of defamation? Aren't other religions just as demonized in other parts of the world?

The UN failed to denote exactly what is defamation, and so opens the door to future denial of free-speech rights. It is interesting to note that the major backers of this resolution, the Organization of the Islamic Conference, are among the greatest deniers of human rights. Fox News has compiled a short, but by no means comprehensive, list of human rights violations by the member states, among them the jailing of a British teacher in Sudan who allowed his (Muslim) students to name the class teddy bear Muhammed, the murder of Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh for documenting the abuse of Islamic women, and the reported arrest of two promoters of a book deemed offensive to the wife of the Prophet, Aisha (they mentioned she was nine and prepubescent when the marriage was consummated.)

Essentially, what is being labeled as the crime of "defamation" in these cases is in reality merely a sin of blasphemy, and of course, blasphemy is all relative. While religion is allowed to have its own beliefs, and have them respected, the actions of a person acting in religious fervor are not similarly defensible. You may believe that all left-handed people are tainted by the devil, and I don't really mind. It's when you forcibly exorcise them that you've crossed the line, and religion can not be a shield for such activity. No matter what your beliefs are, there are others who will disagree with you, and you can not simply shut them up without any reasonable discourse. Kevin Hasson, founder of the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, said it best:

“When you talk about defamation, you talk about people being defamed and people being libeled, but ideas can’t be defamed. Ideas don’t have rights, people have rights.” (quote from Fox News)

And that is precisely what is being happening here - the usurpation of the human right to disagree for the "right" of an idea to never be scrutinized, to never be challenged, and to punish those who do not believe. Sorry for being pessimistic, but that sounds like the first step of militarism to me. How ironic that the UN, once the paragon of world diplomacy, should be the one ushering in a new age of fascism and theocracy.

Edit: My language was probably a little strong. I merely meant that it was somewhat depressing for the UN, bulwark of human rights, to be completely subverted by a repressive agenda against those rights in the cause of religion. I use the term "fascism" to mean a religion of nationalism, which can be combined with any other more common religion in government.

1) As the original source has blocked the post, presumably for generating large amounts of trolling, Cullenism beliefs are here.

Tourism with a Twist - Getting Around Those Pesky Laws

Here in the U.S., our law is governed by our Constitution, and as citizens, we enjoy the full protection of such. However, several attempts have been made to stymie the free speech of Americans by bringing libel suits in foreign jurisdictions, in a tactic known as "libel tourism."

The most high-profile case in recent years was Ehrenfeld v Mahfouz, where Irish/Saudi businessman Khalid bin Mahfouz had won a British libel suit against American writer Rachel Ehrenfeld for identifying Mahfouz in her book as a supporter and funder of terrorism. Ehrenfeld declined to defend herself in British court, citing the unreasonable cost of traveling to London and the fact that she had not published in Britain, and so did not want to lend credence to Mahfouz's libel tourism. After summary judgments had been served on Ehrenfeld, she sued in the New York court, arguing that Mahfouz fell under New York's CPLR 302 (a) (1) statute (Lines 22-3. Sorry for the third-party link, but this was the only definition I could find that did not reference Ehrenfeld), which gave the state jurisdiction over non-residents if they committed business transactions in the state and citing two such transactions.2 Surprisingly, the New York Court disagreed, and granted Mahfouz's request to dismiss Ehrenfeld's countersuit based on lack of jurisdiction. In denying jurisdiction, the court allowed that such action would be constitutionally permissible, but the authority to bring the case into NY jurisdiction had not been explicitly given by the Legislature.

Now hang on a moment. An American citizen, publishing in American forums, is denied the protection of the American constitution because ... a state legislature didn't allow it? Ehrenfeld had made no attempt to publish in Britain, and yet was theoretically subject to British law because third parties had brought 23 copies of her book to Britain and a chapter of her book on ABCnews.com was available to British readers. Yet, somehow, Mahfouz's actions, made totally against Ehrenfeld's work and holdings in America, had no bearing on Ehrenfeld's free speech protections in America. Sounds like the double standard Mahfouz was counting on to intimidate Ehrenfeld. Mahfouz got to attack Ehrenfeld in a completely irrelevant jurisdiction, and Ehrenfeld gets no recourse because New York declined to put Mahfouz under its jurisdiction.

Luckily, the legal loopholes that allowed such actions are being mended as we speak. Early this month, Representative Peter King (R. NY) introduced the Free Speech Protection Act of 2008, also known as Rachel's Law in recognition of Ehrenfeld, to stop such blatant workarounds of American law. Essentially, the bill is a formal recognition of the scare tactics of libel tourism, and a declaration that such judgments are invalid against American citizens until libel has been proven under American law. The bill is also a deterrent against false accusations by tripling damages if it is shown that the false libel was intended to interfere with the speaker's First Amendment rights.

It seems that such things would go without saying, but then, common sense seems to be missing from a lot of U.S. law. Still, this bill would be a huge step in the right direction, as American speakers increasingly find themselves under assault for criticizing foreign states or individuals. The United Nations has not been immune to this assault either, bowing to pressure from fundamentalist Muslims in its statement that "The Secretary-General strongly believes that freedom of expression should be exercised responsibly and in a way that respects all religious beliefs" (Reuters.com). The statement was in response to cartoons that appeared in a Danish newspaper depicting the Islamic Prophet Mohammed (peace be upon him). Under Sharia law, depictions of the Prophet (peace be upon him) are blasphemous, and the cartoonists have had to fend off death threats for their actions.

It seems ridiculous to criticize the cartoonists for deserving the response they got, but so the U.N. did. Now let’s suppose that the cartoonists did attempt to respect every religious belief. How exactly are they supposed to resolve the simple conflict of which deity to portray as the Ultimate God? The U.N.'s decision puts the burden of speech on the speaker not to offend, but there is always someone who will claim offense simply to stop speech they do not agree with. Rather, the burden of speech should be on the listeners to assume some risk of being offended when they enter the public arena, and by extension the global forum. Otherwise, if speakers can not offend anyone, then pretty much all speech is thrown out the window. Want to have a female teacher? Sorry, it offends fundamentalist Christians. Want to grab a burger? Sorry, cows are sacred in Hinduism. Want to declare lack of belief in any god, i.e. be atheist? Sorry, can't have that. The list of ridiculous contradictions goes on. It is simply ridiculous to suppose that a speaker can respect every religion and still manage to convey a meaningful message. Given the global climate and general attitude towards Americans in the world at large, it's an extremely good thing Rachel's Law is under consideration, lest proponents of religious tolerance get sued for libel by fundamentalists claiming their religion is the only true one. It's just too bad that it's taken us this long to figure out that laws in other countries are not exactly in accordance with our own.

And just because I can, here's a cartoon of Jesus and Mo. Original author at www.jesusandmo.net.

Unofficially Disturbed

So we had a bit of an event here at U of I this past weekend. I'm sure if you were in town anytime Friday or Saturday afternoon you saw people out and about celebrating quite energetically. But what exactly were they celebrating?

Getting drunk off their asses, is what. Of course, the "official" reason is that they were celebrating Unofficial St. Patrick's Day. This day was created by bar owner Scott Cochrane in 1996 in order to allow students to celebrate St. Patrick's Day while still at campus, since the real day often fell over Spring Break.1 Originally, just his bars celebrated the event. Shortly, though, other bars and stores realized just how much money Cochrane was getting, and wanted in on the action. It's grown quite a bit since then, and now it pulls alumni and students from all over the Midwest back to Champaign-Urbana to raise a toast (or 21) to Unofficial.

There's a bit of a problem with that, though. Ask almost anyone who's wearing green, they'll say the day is "Just another excuse to get drunk."2 Whatever symbolism Unofficial may have had to Cochrane, the day has simply become a Day of Alcohol. Two men were hospitalized from alcohol poisoning before noon on Unofficial. Public pictures from Unofficial can be found here. The amount of sheer willful bending of the law in the pictures says quite a bit on how limits were perceived that day.

Now of course, the University has attempted to mitigate the harm befalling their students. Visitors were barred from staying overnight in the (mainly freshmen and sophmores) dorms and getting free lodgings. Rather reasonably so, since all the freshmen, sophmores, and half the juniors are below the drinking age. Extra security was positioned around the University during the day, ejecting people from classes for being drunk or carrying alcohol into class. A letter was sent home to parents of the students, asking them to talk to their kids about Unoffical and underage drinking. Champain and Urbana took some action as well, ordering bars not to open until 11AM and to admit only those aged 21 and up, as well as stationing a heavy police presence on the streets.

Which rather begs the question, why not simply ban the day, or at least the liquor? This "tradition" was started by a bar owner to drive up business, nothing more, and now has gotten completely out of hand. Admittedly, local businesses get quite the uptick in business, but at a rather heavy price. Streets, apartments, and people are completely trashed, fights break out at bars, and underage drinking goes through the roof. Derek Roetzer, manager of the Flat Top Grill near Wright and Green, said that Unofficial drove away most of his local business, replacing it with drunken students. Seems like there really isn't anything against banning the day, other than money.

Except the Constitution, of course. Bars, restaurants, and whatever other organizations want to have the freedom to promote and talk about whatever events they want to under freedom of speech. It doesn't matter that the event has caused problems in the past, or even that the cities can show that the next one will too. Terminiello v. Chicago established that a speaker could not be held liable for "disturbing the peace" by his speech, even when that disturbance was two large mobs fighting each other. Even with all the alcohol around, the crowds on Unofficial hardly approached that benchmark of devastation, and so, the promotions continue. The best actions against Unofficial that can be taken are simply those of mitigation, arresting individual perpetrators and increasing security checks in public places and on University property. So local residents and students mark the calendar for next year, one for avoidance and one for jubilation, and the saga continues meandering in a tipsy line til the next round comes.

1 http://media.www.dailyillini.com/media/storage/paper736/news/2009/03/09/News/Bar-Restrictions.Create.Mixed.Opinions.On.Safety.During.Unofficial-3665035.shtml

2 http://media.www.dailyillini.com/media/storage/paper736/news/2009/03/06/News/Students.Visitors.Get.Early.Start.On.Unofficial-3663627.shtml

Edit: The link has been updated, and works for my computer. Sorry if it doesn't for yours.

A New Format

Bear with me as I attempt to mold my thoughts into these posts. Casual yet researched is not exactly my style, and expect some early stumbling before I fully catch my flow.

Testing

This post is a test. Please remove all study materials from your desk and take out your #2 pencils. No Calculators will be allowed. You will have 5 minutes to complete all the questions.

1. Please hand in your test. Congratulations, you will receive an A.