UN chief says anti-Islam film ‘disgraceful, shameless’

40


UNITED NATIONS (AFP) – UN chief Ban Ki Moon said the offensive anti-Islam Internet video that ignited worldwide protests was “disgraceful and shameful.”

Calling freedom of expression and assembly “inalienable” rights, Mr Ban said on Wednesday that they “must be guaranteed and protected when they are used for common justice, common purpose.”

“When some people use this freedom of expression to provoke or humiliate some others’ values and beliefs, then this cannot be protected in such a way,” Mr Ban added, speaking to reporters at the UN headquarters in New York.

 


continue to source article at straitstimes.com

40 COMMENTS

  1. He’s flat out wrong.  The right to free speech is fundamental to every progressive step we’ve made as a civilization and must be protected no matter the idiocy behind a specific incident.  If the UN even feigns a move toward any official refutation of free speech I will be joining the far right in calling for our abdication from this organization.

  2. So if for example someone says that other people who do not follow their beliefs are evil and deserve to burn in agonising pain for all eternity; would that sort of hate speech count as an abuse of freedom of speech?  Saying gays are an abomination, or that they are cause of earthquakes, or that should be killed; does that count as provocative or designed to humilate others? 

    Yes in my opinion. 

    If we are to remove freedom of speech for speech that is disgraceful and shameful, well that would pretty much ban most religious beliefs.  The most offensive speech I’ve ever heard has come from devout Christians and Muslims.

  3. This is one of the most important global issues that needs to be addressed and unfortunately this is where we get into the entanglement of political correctness and liberal ideology. It is a difficult nut to crack. Right now we are being held hostage – and that is unacceptable. 

  4. I believe that Ban Ki Moon should be forced to resign his post over comments like these.
    He might as well be focusing on what a woman was wearing after she was raped. Not only does it not matter, it is offensive to even mention.

  5. Mr. Moon exudes the awful impression that he has never once read any of the valid criticisms against Islam.

    Are we to believe that burning a girls’ school to the ground (the nerve those women have to learn!) constitutes a legitimate tenet? What of engaging in discourse, not about extending rights to demographics you oppose, but about the elevation of cliff required to throw gay people over the edge during execution?

    Who in their right mind is obtuse enough to think that the condemnation of such atrocities is more worthy of legal sanction than the barbarism itself?

  6. I can’t say for sure of course, but I’d bet if I cast Ban Ki Moon in a similarly offensive film, he wouldn’t try to have it banned. He’s not calling to limit free speech in order to save people from “humiliat[ion]“; he’s backing down in the face of childish violence. 

    And does he think that’s going to work? Are the riots done now? Running scared is one thing if it works–I’d happily run from a armed gunman. But this looks like backing down just for the hell of it, and sending a clear message: “Free speech needs to be limited, but I’ll always listen to violence.”

  7. Time to shut down the UN. We can co-exist with Islamic countries, but we can’t mesh with them. We need to learn a lesson and freshen up our history books. We’ve been lying to ourselves about Islam for decades.

  8. No, the UN is more than Ban Ki Moon. 48 agencies genuinely trying to make the world a better place. Don’t throw out the baby with the bathwater. UNICEF, fighting to improve women’s rights, famine relief etc etc. Unfortunately, the UN sometimes reflects the world as it is, instead of holding higher ideals of what the world should be. It should be embraced and improved from within…. and Ban Ki Moon should resign over these backwards comments.

  9. I can’t figure out why the Muslims in the US aren’t protesting. I really appreciate that they aren’t, but if Islam was the only factor then wouldn’t it stand to reason that all Muslims would be protesting? Is it because if a Muslim in the US de-converted, they could shave and move to another city to start over again (freedom)? Or … are more of the  Muslims in the US citizens who have converted, who have a greater understanding of free speech as a value?

  10. Mr Moon is a man in charge of an organisation that exists to protect freedom. His remarks are an abomination at various levels, starting from the obvious ignorance about the meaning of “values” and ‘beliefs”, to the unacceptable sycophantic position of accepting to listen to a violent message, generated by non-violent means. Mr. Moon himself is a free man and he should never forget from where his freedom came from, from who and how long it took all of us to get there. Fear has never made the best politics.

  11. Mr Ban said: “When some people use this freedom of expression to provoke or humiliate
    some others’ values and beliefs, then this cannot be protected in such a way.”
    Doesn’t he understand how EASY it is to CHOOSE to feel provoked or humiliated BY THE SLIGHTEST COMMENT?
    If he has his way, freedom of expression is dead.
    What an idiot.

  12. “When some people use this freedom of expression to provoke or humiliate some others’ values and beliefs, then this cannot be protected in such a way,” 
    When will the appropriately named Mr Ban and his mad mullah friends realise that if you have a genuine worldwide ban on expressions that “provoke or humiliate some others’ values and beliefs”, the very first casualty in that campaign will be the Qur’an and anyone who preaches from it? The Qur’an, along with the Bible, is riddled with expressions of intolerance of those whose beliefs differ from the dogma of those texts.

    Has any journalist pointed this out to these idiots? It would either shut them up or extract a response that would make clear what we already know – it is a ONE-WAY respect that they seek.

  13. Its whole point was to inflame and cause trouble and to get people killed.  It was not a thoughtful critique.  It was a mean-spirited film. Just because you support free speech does not mean you approve of everything spoken.

  14. Most of Western World has socio-culturally passed by Mr. Moon’s restrictive notion of what constitutes free speech.  In the U.S., this is evidenced by the Brandenburg v Ohio U.S. Supreme Court decision, where the 3 critical elements of 1)Intent; 2) Imminnce; and 3) Likelihood must all be demonstrably present before the “speech” is deemed
    to be beyond the confines of the First Amendment. And this was 1969!!!!!!

    How many more “Mohammed depictions”, either in sketch, film,video, or other media, will it take to dumb down the
    “religio-cultural stupor” in these third world Islamic Countries????

     Someone sticking a pin in a “figurative voodo doll”, doesn’t give other somebodies any implicit right to do
    damage to the persons and property of others.

    It sure is easier to continually “draw Mohammed” than it is to continually get up the nerve to do damage
    to persons and property, and then actually do it.

    I’m optimistic that enough instances of the former will ultimately “wear down” the latter. Mankind isn’t
    going to be giving up drawing paper any time soon. 

    The pen, figuratively, is mightier than the sword.

    But it’ll take some time. 

  15. From a cinematographic point of view, the film was disgraceful, and shameless. If I was so bad at film making, I’d give up now. As, for content, I thought it was all true. Those muslims must really hate muhammed if they get so upset at his antics on film. The life of brian, muslim style.

  16. So if I provoke or humiliate someone with my views, then my protection cannot be guaranteed.

    It may be unintentional but it sounds a lot like the Pact of Umar, which set out the terms under which a non-Muslim, or dhimmi may be allowed to live alongside Muslims in an islamic state.

    It sounds like I shall be fair game for all those justifiably outraged mobs out there according to Moon.

    Have the OIC been arm-twisting here?

    Also:  ‘disgraceful’

    No, the film is certainly graceless, but apparently well fact-checked. Though I wonder if truth is still a defence?

    ‘Shameful’

    No, nothing to be ashamed of here except Mr Moon.

  17. “When some people use this freedom of expression to provoke or humiliate some others’ values and beliefs, then this cannot be protected in such a way,”

    This is precisely when freedom of expression must be protected.

  18. Dear Extraterrestrials,

    I’m a member of the human species living on Tellus, the third stone from the star of our solar system (located an estimated 28 000 light-years from the center of the Milky Way galaxy and 20-light-years above the galaxy’s equatorial plane). We are a very young culture and as such prone to ignorance and absurd outbursts of violence. As of lately we have seen a worrying trend where people who refuse to give up their old ridiculous myths are forcing others to comply with their absurd nonsense. 

    I do not claim to be a perfectly rational person. But, I strive hard to have an open mind and hold as many true beliefs and as few false ones as possible. Unfortunately this is not a widely accepted attitude in our societies and hence I would kindly want to apply for asylum in a more developed and rational civilization.

    Yours truly,
    Nunbeliever

  19.  The United Nations, as an organization, has long had the backbone of a jelly fish.

    The UN is an organisation with representation from every country regardless of whether they are liberal democracies, nasty theocracies or totalitarian dictatorships.  Each gets a vote subject to a veto from the Security Council whose permanent members are the major nuclear powers (again regardless of how democratic they are). So given that make up what exactly do you expect the UN to achieve ?  It is meaningless to talk as if it is a liberal democratic government not behaving as we would want it to.  It is what it is and its decisions are sadly what you would expect given its composition.

    Michael

  20.  Its whole point was to inflame and cause trouble and to get people killed.  It was not a thoughtful critique.  It was a mean-spirited film. Just because you support free speech does not mean you approve of everything spoken.

    Neither would I approve of calling for the beheading of those who made the movie. But even it had been a carefully researched, historically accurate documentary the reaction would have been the same.  It takes virtually nothing to trigger the global Islamic chip on the shoulder.  Look at these morons in Sydney:

    http://richarddawkins.net/news

    This is worth a read:

    http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/

    Michael

  21.  Oh, I completely agree with you.  Unfortunately, there are many in the U.S. that give the United Nations’ resolutions and pronouncements some sort of credibility and deference.  When an organization allows a country like the Sudan to sit on its human rights watchdog committee, that really tells you all you need to know about the United Nations.

  22. You just don’t get it Mr. Moon. What is it about “free speech”  that you don’t understand? These two words have been used together much longer than you have been around and you still can’t comprehend the meaning?

  23. must be guaranteed and protected when they are used for common justice, common purpose.”

    aaand who get’s to decide..??

    there are many more films that will provoke, anger, belittle some groups. in many ways it’s why we have a selction of buttons on our TV remote.

    this however is no doubt deja vu for Salman Rushtie as world leaders bend over backwards to reframe freedom of speech as something lovely and fluffy but specifically designed not to upset muslims.

    the fact is, with any offence there are two sides. in htis case the other side is an extremely large and violent group who will continue to be offended regardless.

    it’s a film ffs, a crappy little film. obviously intended to upset muslims but so what? is the position of the UN now that peoples feelings must be protected, especially if they’re muslim?

    a minister in pakistan has just ordered a hit on the film maker. this is something worthy of condemnation.

    in the meantime the UN has decided that actual freedom of expression is too dangerous a concept to try and protect. you can justify murder, rape, child abuse and controling peoples rights as long as there’s a threatening enough looking group who claim it’s part of their culutre or beliefs but the minute a human right comes into some sort of conflict it’s always best to default to the pant-shitting position.

    the offence in this film is based on things that are said in it. words. actual words! we as a species are just as scared by the power of words as we were in the dark ages. why do we need laws if victims of violence are basically “getting what they deserve” for using forbidden words?

    I know lots of people will find the objectification of women offensive. following Moon’s comments will we see a massive shift in advertising methods? of course not because that’s a silent, non-violent majority rather than a loud bloodthirsty one, against a hugely powerful international industry rather than some uneducated red-neck.

    well done on the soft targets everyone. we can all nap safely now….

  24. Seems that Mr Moon  and his vacuous knee jerk nether region lapping of the homicidal maniacs that think a figment of their imagination tells them to riot is himself  “disgraceful and shameful.”
    What a complete and utter dereliction of duty, inventing a ridiculous caveat to the ‘freedom of expression’ that will end in more court cases and deaths that the UN will just ignore, basically because the delegates are sycophantic shallow cowards with not a sliver of integrity between them.

    The UN is a bad joke, it is ignored and a figure of derision globally, no one takes notice of it least of all the religious.

    The logical conclusion and upshot to Mr Moon’s ridiculous comment will be that fundy ministries , like Fred Phelps & his cretins, will be similarly curtailed in their holy frenzy because…

    “When some people use this freedom of expression to provoke or humiliate some others’ values and beliefs, then this cannot be protected in such a way,”

    Maybe even the RCC will be busted for their frequent vitriolic poison they aim at homosexuals…it is offensive and humiliating after all!
    But I doubt Mr Moon has thought about that!

  25. The man isn’t very bright!  He has just appointed Zuma  from South Africa (who is a completely uneducated man whose  country ranks 140 out of 144 in the world for education standards) to the UN education committee!   Zuma has recently stated, with great conviction,  that supporters  of the ruling party in South Africa have rights because it is the ruling party and that supporters of other parties have no rights because they were not elected to power. Ban ki Moon and Zuma are birds of a feather  and have no concept of why freedom of speech is important for civilization.    

Leave a Reply