51. Comment #347292 by DoctorE on February 27, 2009 at 9:17 am

United religions against humanity, freedom, knowledge...
Someones imaginary mass murderer in the sky has more rights than us that live in reality.
Another proof that ID = Totally wrong

Other Comments by DoctorE

52. Comment #347293 by phasmagigas on February 27, 2009 at 9:20 am

i wonder what would constitue blasphemy'

saying 'the koran/bible is written by man'.

could a kid in a school be subject to some kind of state action for saying that'

the implications of this are truly terrifying, its will of course lead to many, many people being killed somewhere, somehow.

the UN needs to first define religion and then define blasphemy.

Other Comments by phasmagigas

53. Comment #347298 by black wolf on February 27, 2009 at 9:32 am

Small countries like the Caribbean ones and others that have little or no international weight of their own in economic or strategic/military matters are known for being 'bought' to vote by countries like the Islamic ones or China and Russia. Usually in exchange for confidential economic deals. Some cases where this happened have been uncovered before.
As the membership of various UN councils and committees is rotation-based, there always are a number of countries like that on them, one country one vote. A tiny island-state has the same voting weight as a country of tens of millions.
Religion fans abuse this system by pouncing whenever enough of those 'buyable' states are in. Russia and China often join in because a) they get oil and b) they like anything that puts a lid on free speech.
Once the oil revenues run out, I'm certain that many countries will stop caring much about religion very suddenly. Until then, things are going to stay bad and turn worse - any half-wit Islamist can understand that they need to secure world power before their last chips are off the table.

Other Comments by black wolf

54. Comment #347299 by DoctorE on February 27, 2009 at 9:35 am

Anything that can't take criticism... is worth absolutely nothing

Other Comments by DoctorE

55. Comment #347301 by ghuckin on February 27, 2009 at 9:42 am

Christopher's book is subtitled "How religion poisons everything", and almost all the interviewers I've heard start off with a question like, "Do you really mean EVERYTHING?". Almost daily, we are seeing what CH means.

Other Comments by ghuckin

56. Comment #347302 by NewEnglandBob on February 27, 2009 at 9:47 am

17. Comment #347240 by mrgoodjob:

This is what happens when you're too liberal... and I'm not a conservative. I think we can draw a comparison with altruism... how it provides ample opportunity for exploitation. I think what is happening here are a bunch of people drunk off liberalism to the point where they'd allow someone to piss down their throat. I'm all for liberalism and Enlightenment ideas... but this time around, I say shoot to kill!

This has to be one of the stupidest comments on RD.net

Typical for right wing nuts to blame the left wing for what extreme far right fundamentalists do.

Other Comments by NewEnglandBob

57. Comment #347303 by DoctorE on February 27, 2009 at 9:51 am

Satan and antichrist talk about free speech... christian free speech
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=88blBiWV8AY

Other Comments by DoctorE

58. Comment #347306 by DoctorE on February 27, 2009 at 9:58 am

What the religious must do is something like this


Stick this on the internet and everywhere the religious could hurt their feelings... cry babies.
If god aka allah is out there.. he probably thinks his followers are shemales or sumthings

Other Comments by DoctorE

59. Comment #347309 by squinky on February 27, 2009 at 10:10 am

What's scary to me about the list Thor25 posted is what a giant swath of the world endorses no free speech.

Russia, China, most of South and Central America, the Middle East, and chunks of Africa. Mind-boggling.

The US, Canada, Europe, Australia, India, and the rest is less geographical area than above.

Time to start revoking UN memberships.

Other Comments by squinky

60. Comment #347310 by robotaholic on February 27, 2009 at 10:20 am

I think my consciousness has just been raised that countries aren't religious - only people in those countries are religious

and religions don't have rights- only people have rights

Edit- obvious, yet I'm going to wince when I hear "muslim country"- religion takes too much credit, it needs to relegated into the obscurity which it deserves

Other Comments by robotaholic

61. Comment #347311 by weesam on February 27, 2009 at 10:33 am

InfuriatedSciTeacher

It might be more likely that they are, literally, being bribed.

Look at their voting record regarding Japanese whaling, for instance. (A policy they surely have nothing , geographically, culturally or economically to do with...)

Other Comments by weesam

62. Comment #347312 by Wulfgar on February 27, 2009 at 10:40 am

Turkey? and they want to join EU?

Other Comments by Wulfgar

63. Comment #347314 by JAMCAM87 on February 27, 2009 at 10:52 am

Comment #347242 by Summer Seale

I hate to say it, but "neocons" have been screaming about this since years. They also were screaming about Shari'a creeping into Western Europe, and nobody believed them. Now we have government sponsored Shari'a courts in certain parts of Europe, and more like-minded crap coming in the near future.

The left delighted for years in proclaiming that such warnings were "racist" and hysterical without ever actually considering that the people on the right, every now and then, may have had a point.

I'm sorry to say, but this is definitely an "I told you so" moment that the right has claims to...because they did tell you so. Nobody on the left listened, and this is what happened.

So please don't assume that this won't go further than the UN, because it most certainly can go further. My prediction' If this passes as a binding resolution in the UN, you will see this coming up in the EU in a few years from now. You may scoff at the idea and find it unbelievable, but you would have said the same about this a few years ago as well.

Please don't think this won't affect you if it passes, and don't think that we are immune to its effects.

Thank you for this. However, you keep saying the left weren't listening. This is not a left/right phenomenon. The fact is - nobody was listening. Conservatives in Britain are even worse than the left when it comes to the issue of the imposition of Islam in the West. I don't see it as a left/right issue. I see it as a theocracy/democracy or liberal/totalitarian divide not as one between left/right (of which I lie considerably to the left).

Other Comments by JAMCAM87

64. Comment #347315 by prettygoodformonkeys on February 27, 2009 at 10:52 am

New England Bob:

I think both left and right, taken to their extremes, are ridiculous.

It seems to me that is what mrgoodjob was saying.

Other Comments by prettygoodformonkeys

65. Comment #347328 by sbooder on February 27, 2009 at 11:53 am

Islam is shit!
Christianity is shit!
Judaism is shit!
Buddhism is shit!...

...come and get me UN.

Other Comments by sbooder

66. Comment #347332 by f252863 on February 27, 2009 at 12:05 pm

To the person who says 99% of the people on here are from the left, I think you are way off the mark.

We are being squeezed by both poles here, the left's desire not to "offend" and the radical right that demands more religion in government.

The global economic catastrophe is far from over and may easily last several more years as the Alt-A and Options ARMS reset. This provides a perfect venue for religion to exploit as states founder under crippling deficits and cope with ancillary effects such as massive public disturbances. rioting.

Now, more than ever, it is time for atheists to assert themselves.

Other Comments by f252863

67. Comment #347334 by NewEnglandBob on February 27, 2009 at 12:08 pm

66. Comment #347315 by prettygoodformonkeys:

It seems to me that is what mrgoodjob was saying.

No, that is not what he is saying. Read it again. "I think...", "I think..."

Other Comments by NewEnglandBob

68. Comment #347335 by Rodger T on February 27, 2009 at 12:08 pm

To the person who says 99% of the people on here are from the left, I think you are way off the mark.

68. Comment #347332 by f252863

I think they meant that 99% of people that post here on RD.net ,were born on planet earth. : 0

; )

Other Comments by Rodger T

69. Comment #347338 by aoratos philos on February 27, 2009 at 12:12 pm

Time to create a religion that has tenets which are almost unavoidable to Blaspheme.

The words "the" "I" "you" and "beetroot" (for comedy value), are words only to be spoken by the elders and followers of my religion. Anyone else uttering these sacred words are to be deemed in gross offence, and deserve the wrath of my religion, in which ever form that may take!!

Other Comments by aoratos philos

70. Comment #347339 by DoctorE on February 27, 2009 at 12:13 pm

Other Comments by DoctorE

71. Comment #347341 by Alfster on February 27, 2009 at 12:31 pm

I wonder whether CNN would be so up in arms if the resolution was only about stopping people speaking out about Christianity?

It seems they have only got their finger out of their arse because it's the Muslims trying to stop people criticising Islam. The 'understanding' and 'dialogue' between different faiths certainly breaks down when one of them gets a head start doesn't it.

Other Comments by Alfster

72. Comment #347344 by jamiso on February 27, 2009 at 12:36 pm

Hay, anyone else see the delicious irony here?



Seriously...a resolution, which outlaws religious defamation. Perfect! Islam will outlaw itself!

The Quran says:
Allah has cursed the Jews for being a bunch a prophet killers and nearly all of them are treacherous pigs.
The Christians are a bunch of perverse pagans, who will suffer in super hell for Blasphemy of allah. The Polytheists...Oh Boy, they are unclean little scumbags who need to be straight out wiped out.

Heck, like 60% of the Quran is nothing but insults, put downs, and out and out threats of non muslims
(not in the mood to cut and paste...go read the silly book yourselves)

By these standards the Quran would have to be legally declared a "hate literature" and be banned!

*as an added bonus:
Since islam blasphemies christianity and christianity blasphemies islam and they both blasphem juedism.........Under anti blasphemy laws, They All Must Be Banned!
All sermons would have to be banned (what could they preach without blaspheming/offending/defaming someone, right?)


Ahhhh, be careful what ya wish for, We could have a field day with this. wkwkwkwkwkw

Other Comments by jamiso

73. Comment #347346 by jamiso on February 27, 2009 at 12:49 pm

I have been told atheism is a "religion"...

therefor I demand Ray Comfort be brought before the Hague at once.

Behead those who insult Bananas!

Other Comments by jamiso

74. Comment #347348 by Mark Jones on February 27, 2009 at 12:50 pm

Comment #347344 by jamiso

I agree. I would have thought just about every religious person in the world would be caught by this resolution. Ironically, the only people who wouldn't fall foul of it is the atheist but-heads.

Other Comments by Mark Jones

75. Comment #347351 by DoctorE on February 27, 2009 at 1:09 pm

There was a women blogger here in iceland who constantly complained about people talking bad about god.
She actually managed to get 2-3 bloggers kicked out of the system.
Then one fine day someone complained about her writings about gays a'la the bible.
Her blog was closed... and she totally did not understand why, why am I cencored??? huh, my blog is about god and the love of god.
Such is the mind of the believers

Other Comments by DoctorE

76. Comment #347353 by jamiso on February 27, 2009 at 1:19 pm

In my religion gays are sacred, in fact god is a homosexual. So, Any homophobia is a direct insult to my beliefs! Its about time someone passed a resolution that will protect the holy act of flaming gayness from defamation. Thank you Ban Ki Moon.



anyway, I think our good friend Ben Franklin said it best:

"When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not care to support it, so that its professors are obliged to call for the help of the civil power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one."

[Ben Franklin, _Poor Richard's Almanac_, 1754 (Works, Volume XIII)

Other Comments by jamiso

77. Comment #347355 by DoctorE on February 27, 2009 at 1:31 pm

When Jebus said: Love thy enemy, was he talking about gawd.
Yep, that must be it.

Other Comments by DoctorE

78. Comment #347357 by AForce1 on February 27, 2009 at 1:34 pm

Forgive me for being obvious & for possibly repeating what someone has already said but .....
Presumably if such a binding resolution is passed, this site(& similar ones) would have to be closed down as the site serves no other purpose BUT to ridicule/criticise/attack (pick your verb)religion and, by definition is "blasphemous" under the definition given in the video clip.
If so, this is indeed the thin of the wedge. I don't know who said it but the following statement seems fitting:
"I don't agree with what you said but I defend your right to say it."
It's mind-boggling to think that under this resolution it would be "illegal(?)" for any government (for example, that of the UK) to be critical of an Islamic country for issuing a fatwah against a British citizen just for writing a novel in which someone Islamic feels offended.
Just imagine the carnage if this site was forced to reveal the names & addresses of posters who had blasphemed Islam.

BTW. I agree that is a pity that Lou D did not let Chris Hutchens speak fully. He's just like Chris Matthews on MSNBC Hardball, where the interviewer speaks more than the interviewee. A good interviewer lets the interviewee speak more (so they can hang themselves or save themselves). It's the way the police & other interrogators play it.

Other Comments by AForce1

79. Comment #347361 by chrisw78 on February 27, 2009 at 1:55 pm

There is no such thing as blaspheme because religion is an unturth, and the united nations should not as a secular organisation be involved in such petty rulings. p.s. very disapponted.

Other Comments by chrisw78

80. Comment #347363 by mikeybates on February 27, 2009 at 2:06 pm

This is something that really needs to get more attention, if the general public is more aware they'll almost certainly object, and there will be a greater chance that this won't pass.

I've emailed both The Sun and The Daily Mail in Britain asking the to print a story, and as much as I dislike these papers, they have a huge circulation and I see no harm is using them to get a message out.

email address for the sun
talkback@the-sun.co.uk
feedback for the daily mail
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/feedback.html

I don't know which the best papers in France, Germany or Spain would be to badger about this, anyone else here know? I'm sure the average French, German and Spaniard would be equally appalled.

Other Comments by mikeybates

81. Comment #347364 by DoctorE on February 27, 2009 at 2:06 pm

Blasphemy is a word for: NO NO NO WE DON'T WANT TO KNOW THE TRUTH, WE DON'T WANT TO DIE.

Other Comments by DoctorE

82. Comment #347365 by chrisw78 on February 27, 2009 at 2:15 pm

dear mikeybates
the sun and daliy mail probably wont print it in fear of being anti-religious and offending the large islamic community in britan. hope I am not being to negative but I am trying some inverse psychology. p.s. ha ha

Other Comments by chrisw78

83. Comment #347367 by DalaiDrivel on February 27, 2009 at 2:18 pm

Squinky,

Time to start revoking UN memberships.

A VERY appealing notion. How would we do this? What procedures are in place?

Captain Mandate,

38 was an eloquently written post if I may say so, even if I don't entirely agree with all of it. I've always yelled in objection to any claim of humanism (usually it's atheism, which of course is not a humanism, or worldview, at all) as religion, but when you said we could be honest about our dishonesty, it started to make more sense.

It can be explained rationally of course, why we have equal entitlement to be offended as the religulous do, but when people are brainwashed, and are essentially insane, how do we reason with that, and how do we even make a claim that humanism is a religion if the insane don't buy it? How can we be sure they will?

I asked Richard Dawkins at his speech at the University of British Columbia as a question if he would be in favour of redefining religion as a Saganesque appreciation for and understanding of the wonders of the natural universe- a naturalism, I guess. His answer was no, as he endorsed religious education in schools, which requires retaining the original definition.

Are you in favour of my proposition? And if we redefine religion as this, am I right in concluding that humanisam would inevitable become religious too?

I'm thinking right now about how Darwin raised consciousness as to our place in the world and evolution- that we are kins with all other lifeforms, with an obligation to stewardship implied in that that most of us in charge have not woken up to.

black wolf,

Once the oil revenues run out, I'm certain that many countries will stop caring much about religion very suddenly. Until then, things are going to stay bad and turn worse - any half-wit Islamist can understand that they need to secure world power before their last chips are off the table.

An intriguing post that has got me thinking. Thank you.

I hope the Islamists run out of time, or fail outright in the time they've got.

(Edited for clarity/grammar/accuracy*)

Other Comments by DalaiDrivel

84. Comment #347368 by SamKiddoGordon on February 27, 2009 at 2:19 pm

RE: post 73 DoctorE

I Have that on a T-shirt I bought in Hawaii in 95. I will have to dig it up, I think it has a few more. Point taken tho, Religion = Shit

I suggest all Atheists move to Alberta Canada. We've got enough resources to last a long while.

Other Comments by SamKiddoGordon

85. Comment #347369 by boogerjames on February 27, 2009 at 2:22 pm

RE: DoctorE's list of Shit

Mormonism: Sacred Golden shit.

Other Comments by boogerjames

86. Comment #347372 by DoctorE on February 27, 2009 at 2:32 pm

It get's me that this states that atheism is a religion.
But im beginning to think that atheism should be a religion... if not we are missing out on some rights, religious rigths to be precise.
Science will be our god, education is the gospel. we can have Dawkins hanging on a DNA string as our religious idol (Man I cant stand idols) :)

We can disperce it when we win, im not a fargin sheep :)

Other Comments by DoctorE

87. Comment #347383 by Tim on February 27, 2009 at 3:08 pm

Despite reading some of the UN documents referred to, I can not find any evidence that the UN is intending to ban blasphemy.

What do you guys have against a ban on defamation of religion? That would not outlaw criticism of religions as defamation means knowingly of recklessly making false statements which present the subject in a negative way.

It will however deal with the lies of the tabloid press.

Other Comments by Tim

88. Comment #347386 by Steven Mading on February 27, 2009 at 3:12 pm

17. Comment #347240 by mrgoodjob on February 26, 2009 at 11:19 pm
This is what happens when you're too liberal... and I'm not a conservative. I think we can draw a comparison with altruism... how it provides ample opportunity for exploitation. I think what is happening here are a bunch of people drunk off liberalism to the point where they'd allow someone to piss down their throat. I'm all for liberalism and Enlightenment ideas... but this time around, I say shoot to kill!

No. What happened here is that people who call themselves liberal haven't been acting like they mean it. The error is not too much liberalism - it's pretend fake liberalism wrapped in the dishonest bullshit of political correctness, causing people to go against their own liberal principles to support happy myths like "Religion is automatically a good thing. There is no such thing as a bad religion.".

Other Comments by Steven Mading

89. Comment #347389 by deejay64 on February 27, 2009 at 3:18 pm

This is one more reason to show how ridiculous , and incredibly ineffectual the UN has become. To draft a world wide law that would bring the rest of the world to Islam's medieval way of life. To ignore the progress that democratic civilization has made toward freedom of thought and expression. Well!

Abolish The UN!!!!

Other Comments by deejay64

90. Comment #347392 by Steven Mading on February 27, 2009 at 3:23 pm

Tim, (comment 94) - look at the history of what sorts of things Muslims have taken to be "insults" of Islam, and how often they will claim plain truths about it are not true. Everything skeptical of Islam is painted as "defamation" whether it actually is or not. And it's the liars who engage in that practice that would be trying to enforce this, not people who look at it reasonably and realize it's not really defamation to criticize with valid argument.

I'm just glad the UN has no real power.

Other Comments by Steven Mading

91. Comment #347395 by KRKBAB on February 27, 2009 at 3:34 pm

Mkl- maybe your right. Maybe it's their strategy to divide and conquer. I'm always torn between thinking what's better: trying to rebuild/refocus the UN or scrapping it all together to start fresh.

Other Comments by KRKBAB

92. Comment #347398 by JernJane on February 27, 2009 at 3:47 pm

I hope this attack on our freedom will be defeated, else I'm moving to a country where this policy will not reach me.

Other Comments by JernJane

93. Comment #347399 by Disturbance on February 27, 2009 at 3:51 pm

@16

I don't think you're being fair. True left wingers are actually more in the nature of libertarians. Except that we think the weak (i,e, women under sharia, or children of pathetically incompentent parents, etc) need help. I actually think that the religous right, who has co-oped your party, is complicit here.

Other Comments by Disturbance

94. Comment #347404 by lackofgravitas on February 27, 2009 at 4:04 pm

There's a blog by Charles Stross (great writer) giving an FAQ for the 21st Century: http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/index.html (some of the comments may appeal to the geek element here.)

One of the points he makes is that we will run out of phosphates for growing stuff before we run out of oil; within 60 years. Imagine grain being more expensive by weight than oil. Maybe we should think about how that would impact the oil producing nations of a religious bent.

As for the UN, I'm pretty sure it would only take 3 or 4 (possibly only 1) veto for it to be sidelined, and there's no way that any blasphemy law, which by its nature is anathem to free speech, would be tolerated in the US where you have a written constitution. Here in the UK, a bit different, our constitution is largely unwritten, added to and generally screwed with until it's unrecognisable. We really are in a position to be royally f*cked. And I choose my words very carefully.

The whole thing is risible, and if the UN lets this piece of legislation through, I'll be moving to NY to harangue those toss-pots every single day.

If you live in the UK, don't forget to e-mail your MP, http://findyourmp.parliament.uk/commons/l/

And tomorrow, there will be a nationwide discussion on modern liberty in the UK:

http://www.boingboing.net/2009/02/27/tomorrow-is-britains.html

Let's start doing something folks.

JH

Other Comments by lackofgravitas

95. Comment #347407 by polestar on February 27, 2009 at 4:12 pm

There are some very odd notions of what the UN is on this thread. An early poster called it a democratic organisation and others wonder about kicking countries out, as if decency were a criterion: it is an organisation of governments, not of people, and includes every country, however vile. Mafiacracy Bulgaria, innumerable theocracies, feudal states, the lot: they form a majority so most things go their way.

Zimbabwe took the chair of the commission on Sustainable Development (yes!) in 2007, Libya was "elected" (in fact it's pretty much by alphabetical rote) to chair the Human Rights Commission (yes!) in 2003, the Disarmament Commission elected Iran (yes!) to one of its three vice-chairs in 2006 and this year Iran took over the multibillion-dollar United Nations Development Program, dedicated to promoting good governance (yes!) and ending poverty. South Africa used its (rotating African) seat on the Security Council last year to prevent criticism of Mugabe.

As for having no power, it has tremendous status (where convenient) in poor and weak states and this resolution will give a legal front to those regimes that hold the law and their people in contempt.

The idea of an international talking shop was that it would drag the tyrannies into openness and civilised behaviour. Don't make me laugh.

Other Comments by polestar

96. Comment #347409 by sonnygll on February 27, 2009 at 4:15 pm

Well, I am a liberal and I used to like the UN. Lately I have been loosing respect for them. Now, I utterly despise them. I have nothing but total contempt and loathing for them.

They have proven they are tyrants, and I want them booted out of the US (my country). I agree that bulldozing the building would be quite satisfying. But reusing for something else would be better. Perhaps it could house an international agency that protects human rights.

The UN has not stopped war crimes or other human rights problems. They are utterly useless. Now they want drag the entire world into theocratic totalitarianism.

In my opinion political correctness is a religion. It is also thought control.

Down with the UN!

Other Comments by sonnygll

97. Comment #347410 by Eshto on February 27, 2009 at 4:17 pm

Well, I am a liberal and I used to like the UN. Lately I have been loosing respect for them. Now, I utterly despise them. I have nothing but total contempt and loathing for them.

Same here.

True left wingers are actually more in the nature of libertarians.

Libertarians are just stoned conservatives.

(not my line, I can't remember where I heard it)

Other Comments by Eshto

98. Comment #347411 by Russell Blackford on February 27, 2009 at 4:19 pm

It's worth looking at the full resolution which you can find (with difficulty) here:

http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N08/634/73/PDF/N0863473.pdf?OpenElement

To make it easier, I just copied the whole lot here:

http://metamagician3000.blogspot.com/2009/02/full-text-of-defamation-of-religion.html

I'm opposed to this resolution, like most others, but the devil is in the detail. If you want to argue against it effectively, it's worth checking exactly what it says.

Much of it is innocuous material that we'd all agree with, e.g. when it deplores literal (physical) violence, or incitement to violence, against people on the ground of religion. To see how sweeping it is, however, you need to dig into the detail and try to work out what it would mean in practice.

The main purpose seems to be to stop "defamation of religion" which mainly seems to mean claims that something in Islam encourages violence and terrorism. So, Fitna would seem to be a classic case of "defamation of religion". But there are other phrases that would, indeed, seem to require prevention of certain kinds of blasphemy - e.g. the production of images on the internet desecrating religious symbols seems to be condemned by this resolution.

Because it's written in UN-style gobbledegook, it's very difficult to pin down what it would mean in practice, i.e. exactly what laws it would require nations to pass if the same wording actually became a basis for a UN Convention, and various nations signed it. That vagueness is itself cause for concern. But the aim does seem to be primarily to stop people saying nasty things about Islam.

I don't know that anything in TGD would necessarily come under "defamation of religion", but large tracts of Sam Harris's The End of Faith probably would, not to mention many things that are said on this site.

I'd be interested in any interpretations of how it would work if it actually became international law, based on a close reading of the actual text. Let's try to get as clear on what we're up against as possible.

Other Comments by Russell Blackford

99. Comment #347412 by SilentMike on February 27, 2009 at 4:20 pm

UN's a joke. Majority of inconsequential dictatorships in the general assembly and 5 bullies with a veto that always get their way on the security council.

Anti-Blasphemy resolution. Please...

Other Comments by SilentMike

100. Comment #347413 by WilliamP on February 27, 2009 at 4:26 pm

Unreal. I can't even imagine how such laws would be defined and enforced. There would be no way to do so consistantly and fairly to all religions, and certainly not with respect to atheists.

If god is so powerful, why do human laws have to protect him'

Other Comments by WilliamP