Saturday, October 17, 2009

If You Can't Kill Free Speech One Way--Try Another

Even before taking office, Barack Obama has been attempting to squelch free speech. During the presidential election, he attempted to use his bully boy lawyers to silence any criticism of him. After assuming office, he continued the pattern, including trying the route of getting citizens to snitch on each other via a special White House e-mail address. So far, he has been largely unsuccessful, but it doesn't stop him from trying.

But in one area he has been quite successful. While we were all distracted by his appearance at the Cavalcade of Crazies known as the United Nations, he succeeded in quietly driving the first of the nails into the coffin of free speech. Since a direct attack on the First Amendment at home would destroy even the Messiah of Mealy-Mouths, try the back door at the United Nations where freedom of speech is of no concern at all.

It took a couple of political maneuvers to get there, but get there he did. First, he had to undo the work of Demon Bush who refused to consort with the tyrants on the U.N. Human Rights Council. As his cover, he declared that engagement is better than non-engagement, so he gave legitimacy to the Council by ending America's refusal to participate. He even went so far as to attempt to get a seat for the U.S. on the Council, so he could "change the Council from within." He moved a little too late to accomplish that (yet), but he has freedom-loving friends in the U.N. Using his position as Chairman of the Security Council as leverage, he got the Egyptian delegation to sponsor his measure to limit speech in the Human Rights Council (HRC).

Very few Americans ever thought that Obama would join in the suppression of free speech so beloved of Euroweenies and Islamic tyrants, and even fewer thought he would lead the charge. On October 1, 2009, the Obama resolution (introduced by the Egyptian government) was immediately adopted by the HRC. Like most communists and other liars, the president entitled the draft resolution "Freedom of Opinion and Expression." It is exactly the opposite of freedom.

Here's some of the applicable wording: "Nation states must take effective measures to address and combat any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence." That's exactly the kind of prosecution Mark Steyn faced in Canada awhile back. When queried on why they would suppress free speech, the chairman of the Canadian Human Rights Commission said, "free speech is an American concept, which we do not find of any particular importance." And all because Steyn pointed out that there are radical Islamists determined to commit terror worldwide in the name of Allah.

It further condemns "negative stereotyping of religions and racial groups." And it states that "the members should also be aware of the need to exhibit a concern for the media's moral and social responsibilities and how the media could assist in the 'voluntary' enforcement of combating intolerance. This should come as no surprise, but that is almost precisely the wording that the Organization of Islamic Conferences used in its attempts to "combat defamation of religions." That includes banning the "defaming" of religions outright, speech critical of religion no matter how accurate, and forbidding discussion of any possible negative consequences resulting from the implementation of religious beliefs, most particularly Sharia law. Until Obama gave them a helping hand, the Council had not passed such measures.

Our Founding Fathers declared freedom of speech to be a fundamental human right. Obama and his Middle Eastern friends have declared the suppression of free speech to be a fundamental human right. Anyone here wonder why I've suggested on numerous occasions that Obama has never read the U. S. Constitution? The Arab and Islamic tyrants are thrilled, and the Euroweenies are in complete denial about the depth of this attack on the ability of free people to express their opinions, however unpopular.

Here's what Obama's ranking U.N. diplomat, Douglas Griffiths has said: "This initiative is a manifestation of the Obama administration's commitment to multilateral engagement throughout the United Nations and of our genuine desire to seek and build cooperation based upon mutual interest and mutual respect in pursuit of our shared common principles of tolerance and the dignity of all human beings." Say what? The HRC and the Organization of Islamic Conferences read it somewhat differently. "Respect" means one thing--the silencing of any speech critical in any way of Islam.

Unlike any previous action regarding speech in which the United States has participated, Obama did not set any of the routine boundaries which exempted America and its Constitution from the rules of the Commission. Obama echoes the words of the Canadian Human Rights Commission in that he doesn't consider free speech to be very important, and since it's a very American value, he doesn't much care for it. In fact, I expect a "free speech apology tour" to be scheduled any time now.

17 comments:

StanH said...

Well Lawhawk, it’s everything that we were promised in the ‘60s, and ‘70s with our leftist friends. We now have the “moral equivalence” arguments in full regalia, and are dictating our foreign policy, because it’s fair. This is a very dangerous concept, and has been proven unfeasible over the thousands of years of human civilization. The only way to keep peace, in this world is through strength. You want to be the biggest, badest, SOB in the valley. We are again exposed for a sucker punch as if it were 9/10/01. God help us!

Tennessee Jed said...

Hawk - when you write some of this stuff, I'm not sure whether "chilling" or "nauseating" better describes the impact of this man. Maybe, even "terrifying." I have always felt Bolten had the best take on the United Nations, Human Rights Counsil, and similar organizations . . utterly useless.

On a side note, it was interesting that the abbreviation for Human Rights Council is the same as Hillary Rodham Clinton. Ever since JFK, Dems have had a thing about three letter abbreviations (or at least three names; snap, snap, snap.)

Writer X said...

Basically the UN resolution might as well say, "We believe in free speech as long as your speech agrees with ours." Someone actually named it "Freedom of Opinion and Expression"? Incredible.

So hypocritical, especially when you look at how he distanced himself from the protestors in Iran and Honduras, not to mention the protestors in his own country. But I use the words "in his own country" loosely.

Thanks for shining a light on this LawHawk.

LawHawkSF said...

StanH: Obama is also working behind the scenes to quick-step the U.S. into membership in the International Criminal Court. Since that court doesn't require a legislature to write law (sort of like the Warren Court here), it could then just make it a crime to insult Allah, Muhammed or Islam. The operations of the U.N. are the exact Satanic mirror-image of what our Founders did with the Constitution.

LawHawkSF said...

Tennessee: Bolton knew, and wasn't the least bit reticent about saying that the U.N. is a miserable, failed, money-devouring, human-life endangering, gathering of anti-democratic vultures. Only a man or woman who fully understands that should ever be made the U.S. ambassador to the U.N.

LawHawkSF said...

WriterX: Yep, that pretty much sums it up. I have to admit, though, that this is the first time I've seen any writing since the Alien and Sedition Acts proposed by an American president which specifically calls for regulation of the press along with the speech itself. Between thee and me, treaties do not automatically take precedent over the Constitution, and I truly can't see the Supreme Court upholding this travesty for any American jurisdiction. It's really a political ploy to put happy faces on the Islamics and Euroweenies while providing Obama another opportunity to call America arrogant for refusing to hand over its basic rights to a kangaroo court.

Libertarian Advocate said...

LawHawk: "Bolton knew, and wasn't the least bit reticent about saying that the U.N. is a miserable, failed, money-devouring, human-life endangering, gathering of anti-democratic vultures. Only a man or woman who fully understands that should ever be made the U.S. ambassador to the U.N."
Call me weird if you like, but I think this should also apply to the Presidency as well.

LawHawkSF said...

LibertarianAdvocate: Well said! And welcome to our blog.

HamiltonsGhost said...

It seems to me that Obama goofed. He should have introduced a ban on all gun ownership first. If the UN tries to squelch the First Amendment in America, they may all be facing those of us who think that the Second Amendment is the guarantor of the First Amendment.

LawHawkSF said...

HamiltonsGhost: I don't understand what you mean. I might have missed something while I was cleaning my .357 magnum. LOL

BevfromNYC said...

You miss the most dangerous exception to this new rule - Israel. Apparently we are all free to condemn Israel and Jews at will. The UN security counsel just endorsed the Goldstone report that condemns Israel for the disproportionate response to continuous bombing from Hamas.

Texas 16, OU 13 5:00 in the 4th
GO TEXAS!!

LawHawkSF said...

Bev: You're so right. I guess I neglected to mention it, since it's often just a matter of repeating the obvious. What ever else occurs, there are always the Jews to blame. That Goldstone report is just another abomination in a long history of abominations. Israel is not allowed to use self-defense as an argument for why stubborn Palestinians and innocent civilians being used as human shields are killed and wounded. Imagine--shooting back at someone who is lobbing missiles at you. How dare they?

AndrewPrice said...

Lawhawk, I heard about this a couple years ago, but I thought it was dead! Holy cow, I can't believe Obama signed it. His buddies at the leftist NGOs should be insane with anger. . . (crickets). . . I guess not.

MegaTroll said...

Lawhawk, What happens if this treaty passes? Doesn't it conflict with the First Amendment to the Constitution? What would prevail?

LawHawkSF said...

Andrew: Alas, once the code goes into effect, we all know that radical Islamic terrorists, Sharia states and neo-communist groups will be exempt, so they have nothing to fear. Only those, like us, who oppose "progressive ideas" will be subject to the rules. It's bad enough that the Obamassiah finally made a decision and subscribed to a UN attack on American First Amendment rights, but he authored the execrable bull as well.

LawHawkSF said...

MegaTroll: I have a problem figuring out how the treaty could be "self-actuating," which is the test as to whether a signatory can selectively enforce or not enforce provisions of the treaty. Our courts have been overly lenient in failing to strike down "hate speech" statutes whenever they rear their ugly head, but beyond that I can't see the Supreme Court allowing direct suppression of freedom of speech and the press under any terms of any treaty. It might even have the opposite effect from that intended and push the Supreme Court into defending the practice of religion in the public forum, reversing a sixty-year long trend of bad decision-making.

Ben said...

Are you aware of the movement to amend ICERD with a binding protocol which would become enforcible international law prohibiting criticism of Islam?

The http://www.box.net/shared/an4lg50v3p meets tomorrow to write the protocol.

This juggernaut will not be stopped or even slowed without a miracle. The HRC will pass it, the G.A. will pass it, the Senate will ratify it and the Supreme Court will let it stand. Kiss your liberty goodbye.

We need to mount a counter attack. Please sign, support and publicize the International Qur'an petition.

Post a Comment