By Douglas V. Gibbs
A "Weekly Standard" article titled "You Can't Say That" by Anne Bayefsky notes Barack Obama's partnership with the United Nations in the effort of limiting the freedom of expression. The U.N. Human Rights Council is hardly about Human Rights - and is more about limiting freedoms based on the opinions of a bunch of bureaucrats what is acceptable, and what is not. Interestingly enough, the main players on this council that wish to limit our freedom of speech is China, Cuba and Saudi Arabia.
Oh, yeah, those are nations that definitely have the American Citizen's best interest at heart!
Not!
This is nothing new. The United Nations has been pushing for limiting free expression for a long time, but the U.S., considering that Freedom of Speech is one of America's most treasured freedoms, has not been willing to jump on board.
Enter, stage left, Internationalist: Barack Obama.
The new resolution, introduced October 1, in the words of the ranking U.S. diplomat, Chargé d'Affaires Douglas Griffiths, ". . . is a manifestation of the Obama administration's commitment to multilateral engagement throughout the United Nations and of our genuine desire to seek and build cooperation based upon mutual interest and mutual respect in pursuit of our shared common principles of tolerance and the dignity of all human beings."
Tolerance is a key word for "shaping your behavior in the way we deem fit, by picking and choosing who should be tolerated, and who should not be."
Egyptian Ambassador Hisham Badr loved the resolution, proclaiming that "freedom of expression . . . has been sometimes misused."
Simply put, these people wish to be able to tell us what we are allowed to say, and not say, based on their warped set of standards, and favoritisms.
Ahh, but the nightmare is only beginning. The resolution, championed by the Obama administration, also has these disturbing elements: "the exercise of the right to freedom of expression carries with it special duties and responsibilities . . ." which include taking action against anything meeting the description of "negative racial and religious stereotyping." It also purports to "recognize . . . the moral and social responsibilities of the media" and supports "the media's elaboration of voluntary codes of professional ethical conduct" in relation to "combating racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance."
In other words, "don't say anything that might offend any religion (especially Muslims), behavior (homosexuality), or ideology (socialism, Islamism) . . . unless of course it is Christians or Jews. You can offend Christians and Jews all you want!
Don't believe me? Wait and see. Remember, some of the biggest backers of this are the communist and Islamic nations, who just so happen to hate Christians and Jews.
Coincidence?
So, when is free speech not free speech?
The claim is that this resolution will protect against religious stereotyping, when in reality it will grant preferential treatment to certain groups.
Freedom is not granted by limiting freedoms. No matter how you slice it, this resolution is a grave danger to liberty - and the Obama Administration is the main force behind it!
One wonders who's side Barack Obama it really on? The American Citizens? Or the international community's?
His divided allegiance is a danger to American liberty, and in my opinion is treasonous behavior.
-- Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
You Can't Say That - The Weekly Standard
No comments:
Post a Comment