4 ms·

'Both the U.S. and the European Union have entered into a dialogue in recent years with the 56 states of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, which is se

'Both the U.S. and the European Union have entered into a dialogue in recent years with the 56 states of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, which is seeking an international law prohibiting blasphemy.' Any proof of this? My natural inclination is to say that this is conspiracy theorist territory that should have no proper place in the WSJ. Sure, the OIC might want blasphemy laws, but are they an actual organization with any real ability to push for this outside traditionally Muslim countries?

maxerickson 12y ago
The way I read it, the concern he is raising is that such a thing was even discussed. There are a lot of "serious people" that seem to think that optics are incredibly important in international politics (or at least, they emphasize them, maybe they have some more cynical reasons for doing so).
nostromo 12y ago
I think he's referencing the "Resolution on Combating Defamation of Religions" http://www.un.org/press/en/2009/gashc3966.doc.htm http://www.un.org/press/en/2009/gashc3966.doc.htm
powertower 12y ago
It's already a problem - http://www.bizpacreview.com/2014/10/27/man-spends-six-months-facing-hate-speech-charges-for-telling-airport-security-im-not-a-muslim-155186 http://www.bizpacreview.com/2014/10/27/man-spends-six-months...
dragonwriter 12y ago
> Any proof of this? The OIC has historically been one key agent pushing for international declarations and laws providing a general protection against "defamation of religion", largely through the Human Rights Council, and has often been successful in declarations on this issue through the HRC, and from their into resolutions passed by the General Assembly. The US and EU have engaged in recent years in dialogue on this issue with the OIC (mostly, a dialogue focussed on ensuring that individual rights were protected and on making that the focus rather than defamation of religion), and one result of that dialogue has been the ending the OICs campaign on the issue in 2011. [1] So, the WSJ piece distorts the facts in two ways (the OIC has specifically sought an international ban on defamation of religions generally, not on "blasphemy" under the terms of any particular religion, and, more importantly, while the dialogue the WSJ piece points to did, in fact, occur, its purpose and effect was not to reinforce the campaign the WSJ misrepresents, but to deflect that campaign.) > My natural inclination is to say that this is conspiracy theorist territory that should have no proper place in the WSJ. The "conspiracy theorist territory" part is, IMO, accurate; while it may not have a proper place in the WSJ by some standards, its pretty typical of the editorial content of the WSJ even before it became News Corp property. Even when the Journal's reputation for news content was rarely questioned (which is much less the case now than it was a couple decades ago), its editorial content was generally recognized as being more than slightly rightward tilted, and often far-right fringe. [1] http://in.reuters.com/article/2011/03/24/idINIndia-55861720110324 http://in.reuters.com/article/2011/03/24/idINIndia-558617201...

maxerickson 12y ago

The way I read it, the concern he is raising is that such a thing was even discussed. There are a lot of "serious people" that seem to think that optics are incredibly important in international politics (or at least, they emphasize them, maybe they have some more cynical reasons for doing so).

nostromo 12y ago

I think he's referencing the "Resolution on Combating Defamation of Religions" http://www.un.org/press/en/2009/gashc3966.doc.htm http://www.un.org/press/en/2009/gashc3966.doc.htm

powertower 12y ago

It's already a problem - http://www.bizpacreview.com/2014/10/27/man-spends-six-months-facing-hate-speech-charges-for-telling-airport-security-im-not-a-muslim-155186 http://www.bizpacreview.com/2014/10/27/man-spends-six-months...

dragonwriter 12y ago

> Any proof of this? The OIC has historically been one key agent pushing for international declarations and laws providing a general protection against "defamation of religion", largely through the Human Rights Council, and has often been successful in declarations on this issue through the HRC, and from their into resolutions passed by the General Assembly. The US and EU have engaged in recent years in dialogue on this issue with the OIC (mostly, a dialogue focussed on ensuring that individual rights were protected and on making that the focus rather than defamation of religion), and one result of that dialogue has been the ending the OICs campaign on the issue in 2011. [1] So, the WSJ piece distorts the facts in two ways (the OIC has specifically sought an international ban on defamation of religions generally, not on "blasphemy" under the terms of any particular religion, and, more importantly, while the dialogue the WSJ piece points to did, in fact, occur, its purpose and effect was not to reinforce the campaign the WSJ misrepresents, but to deflect that campaign.) > My natural inclination is to say that this is conspiracy theorist territory that should have no proper place in the WSJ. The "conspiracy theorist territory" part is, IMO, accurate; while it may not have a proper place in the WSJ by some standards, its pretty typical of the editorial content of the WSJ even before it became News Corp property. Even when the Journal's reputation for news content was rarely questioned (which is much less the case now than it was a couple decades ago), its editorial content was generally recognized as being more than slightly rightward tilted, and often far-right fringe. [1] http://in.reuters.com/article/2011/03/24/idINIndia-55861720110324 http://in.reuters.com/article/2011/03/24/idINIndia-558617201...