The United States under President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
From Forbes: The US has officially adopted UN resolution 16/18. An initiative of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (formerly Organization of Islamic Conferences), the confederacy of 56 Islamic states, Resolution 16/18 seeks to limit speech that is viewed as “discriminatory” or which involves the “defamation of religion” – specifically that which can be viewed as “incitement to imminent violence.”
Whatever that means.
Initially proposed in response to alleged discrimination against Muslims in the aftermath of 9/11 and in an effort to clamp down on anti-Muslim attacks in non-Muslim countries, Resolution 16/18 has been through a number of revisions over the years in order to make it palatable to American representatives concerned about U.S. Constitutional guarantees of free speech. Previous versions of the Resolution, which sought to criminalize blasphemous speech and the “defamation of religion,” were regularly rejected by the American delegation and by the US State Department, which insisted that limitations on speech – even speech deemed to be racist or blasphemous – were at odds with the Constitution. But this latest version, which includes the “incitement to imminent violence” phrase – that is, which criminalizes speech which incites violence against others on the basis of religion, race, or national origin – has succeeded in winning US approval –despite the fact that it (indirectly) places limitations as well on speech considered “blasphemous.”
What’s worse, the measure codifies into the UN agenda support for the very notion democracies now wrestle with, and which threatens to destroy the very fabric of our culture: tolerance of the intolerant, or rather, the question of whether a tolerant society must also tolerate ways of life that are intolerant – that oppress women, say, or advocate violence against homosexuals, or force strangers to marry against their will. It is, in fact, this very concept that the OIC has long pressured Western governments to adopt in other ways, and that those supporting the adoption of Sharia law in the west have emphasized. Yet if we fall into that trap – as it appears we are – we will have lost the very heart of who we are.
January 6, 2012
January 3, 2012
100 most popular baby boy names of 2011!
Each year, BabyCenter gets the most popular
baby names from thousands of new parents.
Here are the year's winners in baby boys names.
100 most popular baby girl names of 2011!
Each year, BabyCenter gets the most popular
baby names from thousands of new parents.
Here are the year's winners in baby girls names.
Pit Bull Service Dog Reunited With Disabled Vet!
Snickers, a pit bull mix, is ringing in the new year at home.
Thanks to U.S. District Judge Mark Bennett, who granted a temporary injunction on Wednesday, allowing Snickers to be immediately returned to his owner Jim Sak, a retired Chicago police officer.
Read more: http://www.care2.com/causes/pit-bull-service-dog-reunited-with-disabled-vet.html#ixzz1iNcAsQQh
Thanks to U.S. District Judge Mark Bennett, who granted a temporary injunction on Wednesday, allowing Snickers to be immediately returned to his owner Jim Sak, a retired Chicago police officer.
Sak, a disabled Vietnam War veteran, was partially paralyzed after suffering a stroke in 2008, which was followed by brain surgery. Snickers is a certified therapy dog who aids him with a number of tasks from helping him stand and walk to getting help in an emergency. That was Snickers’ job until Sak and his wife Peggy Leifer moved to Aurelia, IA, last month to be near her elderly mother.
Days after moving, someone reported the Sak to city officials due to the breed ban the city has in place.
“I didn’t know there was a Pit Bull ban (here),” said Sak.
Days after moving, someone reported the Sak to city officials due to the breed ban the city has in place.
“I didn’t know there was a Pit Bull ban (here),” said Sak.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)