Laws against god’s treasure and their impact on fundamental rights worldwide
Despite considerable efforts to their definition, no one is exactly what today "religious" actually. The human rights organization freedom house explores in your current report "policing was" the impact of laws to protect these undefinable cumbers.
In the us, the woman is, is the freedom at home, and therefore there is also a special house for you: the organization "freedom house". Founded in 1941 with prominent jerk covering (says z.B. Hamed eleanor roosevelt to its first supports), the organization is sometimes referred to as an ngo today, although your money comes to two-thirds of the us government. The state remote should therefore be doubted, and the explanatory goal of dissemination "liberal-democratic" values coincides with that of us aufpolitik also in many cases, such as.B. In the support of the solidarnnosc in the eighties of the last century.
There are valid criticism in the concept of freedom and on the occurrence of "freedom house"; even from a function as a prolonged arm of the cia is the speech. However, it would be short-sighted to shout from it "freedom house" be complete a house of national propaganda.
For example, in the 1960s, one stepped in for the burger rights movement in the usa. It’s just at "freedom house" the same as so often in organizations that "freedom" have prescribed western prescription: one calls on the development of liberal string principles as long as they do not contradict the freedom to maximize their elasticity in reality. If you follow this, the report is "policing was" a rewarding and interesting reaffirm.
Unjustified restrictions of speech
It’s about laws who want to get the blasphemy, and their impact on fundamental rights overall where they grab. Seven countries examined the author joanne prud’homme, namely algeria, egypt, greece, indonesia, malaysia, pakistan and poland. Your perspective is clear from the outset:
Definition gemeful, in the protection of religious institutions, doctrines, figures and concepts, were created in other words, non-human ideas and entities – unjustified restrictions of freedom of speech.
It pays up the punishment acceptance of these laws to prevent "blasphemy" to be threatened and of fines, rich in detention to the death penalty. Generally, the report concludes that the blobe existence of anti-blasphemy laws disappear the freedom of speech in a country, not only by the said punishment, but also by supporting religious self-judiciary of non-governmental side (which quite until to romp one "saint" lynchmobs can go) that they always support the most extreme interpretations of religious power claims, because it is natural to see their ownership who is most likely to be insulted. And that the miters of these laws in states that can be democratically called are damaged by the freedom of speech by calling a) to self-center and b) encourage non-democratic states to maintain and expand blowphales, which in extreme torture and death as punishment for provide such misconduct.
The continuing existence of "anti-blowphemical sites" in some of the best democracies in the world, their abusable application supports elsewhere, but also the argumentation of the import of such laws at international level.
More society conflicts
As an example, the report states that pakistan has used the formulations of the irish anti-blowing phase in a project in front of a committee of the un to import this variety legislation. Germany also germany with his famosies paragraph 166 stgb finds the knowledge. As regards the assertion implicitly contained in paragraph 166 and otherwise provided otherwise, the laws on the protection of religious cum are necessary to obtain the peace within multireligious societies, the report says:
There are only a few evidence that blasphemy prohibitions are effective means of fighting racist and religious intolerance. On the contrary, the enforcement of such prohibitions seems to produce and strengthens national conflicts instead of preventing them.
As an example, she leads the ahmadiyya, a self-resident belief in the belief, which is actively legislative in several islamic countries. All anti-blasphemy laws, even those in liberal societies, legal instruments that allow the predominant religion to be underprinted differing worldviews.
Special attention is paid to the report as mentioned in the pre-establishment for the establishment of internationally valid anti-blasphemy laws. Here the author sees especially on the "ad hoc committee on the elaboration of compplementary standards", this itself was a result of the un world conference against racism in 2001 in durban / sudafrika.
A concept that acts in reality the idea of human rights on the head
During a meeting of the committee in 2009, pakistan proposed to introduce additional passages to the international convention to eliminate all forms of racial discrimination, which were prohibited the defamation of religions. Nigeria introduced a similar proposal in representation for the african subscriber group.
The author of the "freedom house"-report summarizes your views to such ideas as follows:
The serious and far-reaching abuse, which can result from the use of anti-blasphemy laws, greater serious doubts about the establishment of similar laws at an international level. Such laws were given further legitimacy to their faulty national role models and threaten peace in the world society instead of protecting him, as claimed. Worse: such laws were added to the braid of international human rights a concept, which in fact is the idea of human rights on the heads, by limiting the freedom of speech and freedom of action (…) to protect certain ideas and through the idea of equality and the rule of law submission under religious orthodoxy and subjective feeling of insults was replaced.
Do not add much from the author’s point of view.