Opinion
 
    
  
+Login    +Register    +Find Id / Pw Home  l  Archives  l  Learning Times  |  Sitemap  |  Subscription  l  Media Kit  l  PDF
   Home > Newszone > Opinion > Today`s Column > Monday, February 13, 2012 | 1:50 a.m. ET
  National
  Biz/Finance
  BusinessFocus
  Technology
  Arts & Living
  Sports
  Opinion
    Editorial  
    Thoughts of the Times  
    Today`s Column  
    Lee Chang-sup Column  
    Desk Column  
    Letter to the Editor  
    The Dawn of Modern Korea  
    Another Korea  
    What`s Your Take?  
    Letter from America  
    Random Walk  
    Sean Hayes  
    Michael Breen  
    On Second Thought  
    Views From Overseas  
    Andrei Lankov  
    Jon Huer  
    Jay Kim  
    Untold Stories  
    Tom Plate  
    Bukchon Journal  
    Living Science  
    Pacific Perspective  
    Oh Kong-dan  
    Diplomatic Periscope  
    On Cultural Heritage  
    Guest Column  
    Times Forum  
    Readers` Forum  
    Shin Hyun-gook  
    Cartoon  
    Great and Simple Things  
    Thinking Aloud  
    Ideas & Ideals  
    Jim Hoagland  
    Choi Yearn-hong  
    Today in History  
    Reporter's Notebook  
    Washington Lounge  
    Hyon O'Brien  
    Andrew Salmon  
    Jason Lim  
    Donald Kirk  
    Toward multiculturalism  
  Community
  Special
  Science
  The Learning Times
     About English News
     iBT TOEFL
     Essay
     
 
   11-23-2009 16:39 여성 음성 남성 음성
Suppressing Free Speech in Name of Religion



By Dale McFeatters
Scripps Howard News Service

A group of Islamic nations, led by Algeria and Pakistan, is lobbying to bring before the U.N. General Assembly a proposed treaty banning mockery of religion, according to the Associated Press.

The pact would, in effect, be a global anti-blasphemy treaty and an obvious and alarming threat to freedom of expression.

The move seems to have its roots in the backlash four years ago against a Danish newspaper that printed cartoons of the prophet Muhammad.

The often-violent overreaction at home and abroad shocked many Western European nations, which began to wonder what kind of intolerance had been growing in their midst.

In a letter in support of the campaign for the treaty, Pakistan, writing on behalf of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, said it ``believes that the attack on sacredly held beliefs and the defamation of religions, religious symbols, personalities and dogmas impinge on the enjoyment of human rights by followers of those religions."

The letter writer did not see fit to note that some members of the 56-nation conference are hardly paragons of human rights.

The letter seeks to outlaw utterances that are ``grossly abusive or insulting" to religion without defining precisely what it deemed grossly abusive.

That kind of spongy language leads many to suspect that the treaty would be used against political dissidents as much as it would be used to protect the feelings of the devout.

The United States is said to be working to kill the proposal and hopefully other nations are, too. In the unlikely event the United Nations did vote to propose an anti-blasphemy pact as a global treaty, it technically would be binding only on those nations that ratify it. No nation that believes in free speech would do so.

Dale McFeatters is an editorial writer of Scripps Howard News Service (www.scrippsnews.com).