So today’s cartoon is a little bit heavier than the recent “dinosaur fashion model” fare, but this is something I kind of feel strongly about. Some of the more political cartoons can inspire some debate, so I want to just cover a couple of points before anyone starts accusing me of anything…
I am not against the whole message of the recent U.N. Bill against defamation of religion. Obviously I don’t think religious hatred is a good thing. But I do have a very big problem with the particular passage quoted in the cartoon (completely verbatim from the text of the resolution itself, by the way. Warning, PDF link) To illustrate…
10. Emphasizes that, as stipulated in international human rights law, including articles 19 and 29 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and articles 19 and 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, everyone has the right to hold opinions without interference and the right to freedom of expression, the exercise of which carries with it special duties and responsibilities and may therefore be subject to limitations only as provided for by law and are necessary for respect of the rights or reputations of others, protection of national security or of public order, public health or morals and general welfare;
Now, maybe I am reading that incorrectly, but it seems a lot to me as if the U.N. Is suggesting that freedom of expression is “subject to limitations” in order to protect, among other things, “the reputation of others”, “public order” and “public morals.” There is no mention of religion in this passage.
But here is my point in a nutshell; freedom of expression should have no limits under any circumstances ever. That includes everybody, in any situation. Even for things we find abhorrent. I recently posted a little rant about how much I hate Fred Phelps. There is nothing I would like more than to see his brand of racist, homophobic bullshit vanish from the public consciousness forever, but does he have the right to say those things? Absolutely. Just as I have the right to call him on it and make a website that calls him a dick.
And here is the problem with targeting religious defamation specifically: pretty much everyone is religious. In the above paragraph, I just called the teachings of the entire Westboro Baptist Church “racist, homophobic bullshit.” That is definitely defamation of a religion. So this site should probably be shut down. Except that last night an angel came to me in a vision and said that my website was holy, and I started the Church of Mark. So you’d better not say anything bad about me, cause freedom of expression doesn’t extend that far, heathens.
This, of course, is an insanely childish way to illustrate my point, but the fact remains that anyone can claim to be religious and use it to their advantage. It’s completely intangible. But at least people couldn’t possibly be petty enough to use legislation like that just to sass people who disagree with them, right?
Oh wait, Freedom Fries.
You can’t legislate away intolerance, all you can do is set an example. Let the Gods avenge themselves.