Archive for ‘Laws’

October 25th, 2009

Blasphemy-Dangerous or Necessary?

In an effort to rebuild our relationship with the United Nations, a effort that is being questioned by many Americans, the Obama administration has chosen to support an agenda that contradicts our own Constitution.

blasphemyThe United States has backed a new UN resolution on free expression which would be considered unconstitutional under its First Amendment — which protects freedom of expression and bans sanctioning of religions.

The UN Human Rights Council on 2 October adopted the resolution, which the US had co-sponsored with Egypt. The US had finally joined the Human Rights Council in June, and its support for the measure reflected the Obama administration’s stated aim to “re-engage” with the UN.

While the new resolution focuses on freedom of expression, it also condemns “negative stereotyping of religion”. Billed as a historic compromise between Western and Muslim nations, in the wake of controversies such the Danish Muhammed cartoons, the resolution caused concern among European members.

“The language of stereotyping only applies to stereotyping of individuals, I stress individuals, and must not protect ideologies, religions or abstract values,” said France’s representative, Jean-Baptiste Mattéi, speaking for the EU. “The EU rejects the concept of defamation of religion.”

France emphasised that international human rights law protects individual believers, not systems of belief. But European members, eager not be seen as compromise wreckers, reluctantly supported the measure.

On the other side of the fault line stood the Organisation of the Islamic Conference (OIC), which lobbied for a measure against “religious defamation”.

“We firmly believe that the exercise of freedom of expression carries with it special responsibilities,” said Pakistan’s delegate, speaking for the OIC. The “defamation” of religion, he said, “results in negative stereotyping of the followers of this religion and belief and leads to incitement, discrimination, hatred and violence against them, therefore directly affecting their human rights.”

Following the OIC’s logic, one could equally apply the language of the resolution to Islamism, a political form which is arguably a “contemporary manifestation of religious hatred, discrimination and xenophobia. It results in negative stereotyping of the followers of other religions and beliefs and leads to incitement, discrimination, hatred and violence against them, therefore directly affecting their human rights.”

The EU also had other worries. European members felt that the provision in the resolution on “the moral and social responsibility of the press” was objectionable in that it went beyond the limited restrictions set out in article 19, the provision on free expression in the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights. (Source-Index on Censorship)

As Jonathan Turley comments at USAToday,

Thinly disguised blasphemy laws are often defended as necessary to protect the ideals of tolerance and pluralism. They ignore the fact that the laws achieve tolerance through the ultimate act of intolerance: criminalizing the ability of some individuals to denounce sacred or sensitive values. We do not need free speech to protect popular thoughts or popular people. It is designed to protect those who challenge the majority and its institutions. Criticism of religion is the very measure of the guarantee of free speech — the literal sacred institution of society.

While I respect the right of any person to believe as they wish, I also believe that the right to speak our minds freely and without fear of reprisal, intimidation or sanction is a hallmark of Western democracy. We should not surrender our rights in order to provide uncertain security in the face of violent opposition to contrary opinions. Ben Franklin wrote, “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety”.

There is no reason to provide special protection to religious beliefs. The fear that religious believers will suffer “incitement, discrimination, hatred and violence against them” is nonsensical. The majority of people on the planet are religious. Religious believers hold most of the positions of power in both the East and West. They have no reason to fear the opinions of the minority. The most immediate danger to any believer in a particular god are those who believe in another god.

Criticism is not necessarily an act of hatred. Quite often criticism is an act of love. If a family member has become enslaved to drug addiction, is it an act of discrimination or hatred to criticize their addiction? If I firmly believe my country, a country I willingly served to defend, is headed in a dangerous and unconstitutional direction, should I remain mute?

Religious belief in a generic sense is predominant among humans around the globe. But there is little agreement as to the nature of the god the religious believe in. What anti-blasphemy resolutions seek to achieve will result in the inability of Baptists to speak out against the Catholic Church or reasonable people to object to the foolishness of Scientology. We will have to remain silent when Iran decides to execute those who oppose their theocracy or happen to be homosexual. Any theocratic government will be exempt from criticism by anyone for any reason.

The philosophical and legal quagmire with such legislation centers around the definition of “blasphemy.” Practically every religion, sect and cult possesses concepts that are blasphemous to another. As an important example, while Christians believe that Jesus Christ was the Son of God, Muslims consider him a mere prophet, albeit an important one. Calling Christ the “Son of God,” however, is viewed as “blasphemous” within Islam, as is not believing in Mohammed as Allah’s final and most important prophet. Under such anti-blasphemy legislation, therefore, all Christian literature could be confiscated and Christians arrested, because at its very core, Christianity would represent “blasphemous material” that could cause—and has caused—outrage many times in the Muslim world, explaining in part why the Bible is banned in such fundamentalist Islamic countries as Saudi Arabia.

Furthermore, the punishment for blasphemy according to the Koran includes death and maiming, as stated at Surah 5:33:

“Those that make war against God and His apostle and spread disorder in the land shall be slain or crucified or have their hands and feet cut off on alternate sides, or be banished from the land.”

Obviously, many people would object strenuously that there is any relationship between God and all this bigotry, cruelty and gore—to suggest otherwise would be extremely offensive to them and cause them outrage. This notion of a violent, cruel and enslaving God who approves of such behavior would offend their religious sensibilities, leaving its purveyors themselves open to charges of “blasphemy.” (Source-jdstone.org)

The lack of religious belief is just as valid a philosophical position as any religious belief. The only reason theists of any stripe think they can outlaw blasphemy is their majority status. It’s not an issue of rights or responsibility, it’s a matter of “might makes right”.

Related articles by Zemanta
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

CategoryInternational, Laws | Comment2 Comments »

Tags:
January 4th, 2009

A personal information hellhouse

The private sector will be asked to manage and run a communications database that will keep track of everyone’s calls, emails, texts and internet use under a key option contained in a consultation paper to be published next month by Jacqui Smith, the home secretary.

A cabinet decision to put the management of the multibillion pound database of all UK communications traffic into private hands would be accompanied by tougher legal safeguards to guarantee against leaks and accidental data losses.

But in his strongest criticism yet of the superdatabase, Sir Ken Macdonald, the former director of public prosecutions, who has firsthand experience of working with intelligence and law enforcement agencies, told the Guardian such assurances would prove worthless in the long run and warned it would prove a “hellhouse” of personal private information.

The home secretary postponed the introduction of legislation to set up the superdatabase in October and instead said she would publish a consultation paper in the new year setting out the proposal and the safeguards needed to protect civil liberties. She has emphasised that communications data, which gives the police the identity and location of the caller, texter or web surfer but not the content, has been used as important evidence in 95% of serious crime cases and almost all security service operations since 2004 including the Soham and 21/7 bombing cases.

Until now most communications traffic data has been held by phone companies and internet service providers for billing purposes but the growth of broadband phone services, chatrooms and anonymous online identities mean that is no longer the case.

The Home Office’s interception modernisation programme, which is working on the superdatabase proposal, argues that it is no longer good enough for communications companies to be left to retrieve such data when requested by the police and intelligence services. A Home Office spokeswoman said last night the changes were needed so law enforcement agencies could maintain their ability to tackle serious crime and terrorism.

External estimates of the cost of the superdatabase have been put as high as £12bn, twice the cost of the ID cards scheme, and the consultation paper, to be published towards the end of next month, will include an option of putting it into the hands of the private sector in an effort to cut costs. But such a decision is likely to fuel civil liberties concerns over data losses and leaks. Macdonald, who left his post as DPP in October, told the Guardian: “The tendency of the state to seek ever more powers of surveillance over its citizens may be driven by protective zeal. But the notion of total security is a paranoid fantasy which would destroy everything that makes living worthwhile. We must avoid surrendering our freedom as autonomous human beings to such an ugly future. We should make judgments that are compatible with our status as free people.”

Maintaining the capacity to intercept suspicious communications was critical in an increasingly complex world, he said. “It is a process which can save lives and bring criminals to justice. But no other country is considering such a drastic step. This database would be an unimaginable hell-house of personal private information,” he said. “It would be a complete readout of every citizen’s life in the most intimate and demeaning detail. No government of any colour is to be trusted with such a roadmap to our souls.”

The moment there was a security crisis the temptation for more commonplace access would be irresistible, he said. (Source-The Guardian)

How afraid of becoming a victim of crime does a person have to have to endorse the wholescale undermining of personal rights and freedoms?

Thanks to press coverage of every little incident of criminal activity and the government’s continued efforts to make its citizens feel vulnerable and frightened, people seem to be developing the perception that crime is rampant and there are terrorists in every neighborhood. We are being encouraged to allow the government to employ draconian measures to protect us from a threat they can’t seem to substantiate.

Where are these hordes of terrorists? Has crime, measured per capita, really risen to unprecedented levels? intruder

Is there any guarantee that by surrendering our freedom to the government we are assured to never suffer another terrorist attack or that we’ll never be a victim of crime? Can they show a cost-benefit ratio that justifies their actions?

Thousands of people just lost their savings due to the scam perpetrated by Maddow. How will these actions prevent this sort of crime? Should we surrender control over our finances to the government so they can “protect” us from ponzi schemes and phishing sites? How much of our autonomy should we give up in order to feel a little safer, especially when that perception might be nothing more than an illusion?

I’m with Ben Franklin when he said, “They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security.”

CategoryGovernment, Laws, Society | CommentNo Comments »

Tags:
December 21st, 2008

Don’t you annoy me

Repeatedly annoying or insulting someone in Brighton could get you fined.

The City Council Thursday passed ordinance amendments aimed at protecting individuals from harassment, intimidation or interference by others in their daily activities.

City Manager Dana Foster stressed that the amended ordinance wasn’t adopted to muzzle anyone or infringe on their rights.

The ordinance makes it a civil infraction for a person to “engage in a course of conduct or repeatedly commit acts that alarm or seriously annoy another person and that serve no legitimate purpose.” It further makes it illegal to “insult, accost, molest or otherwise annoy, either by word of mouth, sign or motion any person in any public place.”

Brighton Police Chief Tom Wightman said violating the ordinance is punishable by fines only. He also said it’s not about a single incident but involves repeated acts. (Source-Ann Arbor News)

annoying

They seriously don’t see this as infringing on a person’s rights? What purpose does an ordinance like this serve except to provide an end-around the 1st Amendment? Does anyone think this will survive its first court challenge?

Who will be the arbiter of what is annoying? What exactly constitutes an interference? Will Jahovah’s Witnesses be fined under this ordinance? How about those who badger me to register to vote outside the grocery store? How will a person substantiate their perceptions in a court of law? Where’s the standard, since what annoys or offends you may have no impact on me?

Will poorly considered ordinances like this be enforced by the thought police?

CategoryIn the News, Laws, Politics, Society | CommentNo Comments »

Tags:
October 18th, 2008

Islamophobia disguised under ‘freedom of speech’

Writing to Islam Online, Sadia Ali Aden complains that the freedom of speech is a cover for hate speech directed toward Muslims.

The heartrending reality of bigotry and Islamophobia in today’s American environment is overwhelming.

The Islamophobes use the media as a propaganda tool to poison the minds of the American people under the disguise of “freedom of speech.” This was evident when Mr. Glen Sheller, editor of The Columbus Dispatch newspaper’s editorial page, defended the Dispatch’s distribution of the fear mongering DVD “Obsession,” which was intended to instill fear in the hearts and minds of the unsuspecting American people.

While we should relish and strive to benefit from our freedom of expression without fear or favor, we should also be mindful that the way we use our “freedom of speech” speaks volumes about us.

The gate keepers of public forums should remain neutral moderators and not compromise their ability to objectively protect the principles of this American value. Once reason is overshadowed, and objectivity diluted with hate, positive public discourse becomes more elusive.

There is a fine line between the healthy use of freedom of speech, and employing such “freedom” to advance bigotry and Islamophobia. The Media has become an effective tool for prolonging the psychological terrorization of the American people. American citizens must be vigilant in not allowing hate mongering interest groups, such as the producers of this DVD, to subvert such values as liberty, peace, and justice for all.

I am strongly opposed to newspaper editors, like Mr. Sheller, allowing themselves to be used to advance the agenda of hate mongering Islamophobes. As a mother who must carefully shelter her child from dangers lurking in the dark, I also feel the need to protect our cherished Constitutional principles, and the hard earned image of the better of the “two Americas.”

I fully understand the pain and anxiety caused by these hate mongering, Islamophobic groups who try to cloak their agendas under the umbrella of “freedom of speech”. They are far more detrimental to the health and welfare of America than meets the eye.

The promulgation of hatred and bigotry does not lead to positive public discourse.

In such an atmosphere that fosters so much pain and fear, a more healthy journalism – one that is balanced and fair – must be exerted. I support freedom of speech, but not at the expense of truth and justice!

Truth and justice. Foreign concepts to a discussion of religion. Truth is actually opinion and belief unsubstantiated by any form of evidence, as a proper proof would be. Justice is the new codeword for not allowing criticism and skepticism of anyone’s particular faith.

Islam is perhaps the least tolerant, next to Scientology, of any public challenge to its beliefs. They are seeking to have blasphemy made illegal in international courts. This is nothing less than an attempt to undermine the very essence of free speech. Religious belief must be very fragile if it cannot stand up against skepticism and doubt.

Harold Stone, in his reply to the Columbus Dispatch editorial mentioned by Aden, says exactly what I think when I read comments like Aden’s.

I respond to the Sept. 19 Faith & Values article “Distribution of DVD disturbs many Muslims.” I and everyone with whom I have discussed it applaud The Dispatch and other media outlets for the invaluable public service done by distributing the DVD Obsession: Radical Islam’s War Against the West.

The defensive comments of Asma Mobin-Uddin, president of the Ohio Chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, offer no reasons for viewers to question the film’s validity or grave concerns and fears it generates.

I submit that her “anger and disappointment” at the disparagement of radical Islam are misdirected. As I understood the film, it attacked an estimated 15 percent of Muslims, not all, as Mobin-Uddin stated.

Where is the outrage, shame and guilt that righteous Islamists should espouse toward the abhorrent deeds and preachings of Islamic extremists (whatever their percentage of the faith) who are demanding death for all non-believers and are training a new generation to perpetuate their objectives? Are the other estimated 85 percent of Muslims simply turning a blind eye to the radical movement with hope that it will go away? Or does their seeming acquiescence reflect a degree of unspoken support?

If Mobin-Uddin is aware of falsehoods or misrepresentations presented by Obsession, she is obligated to address them specifically, clearly and objectively, not in an aura of self-indulgence or self-pity. To do otherwise is, I believe, a disservice and self-inflicted humiliation to all Muslims.

If Muslims do not themselves squelch the pervading evil and consuming hatred within the Islamic faith, who then must? And at what cost to civilization?

CategoryFree Thought, International, Laws, islam | CommentNo Comments »

Tags:
March 22nd, 2008

Time magazine invents facts to claim that Americans support Bush’s domestic spying abuses

Glenn Greenwald, in a Salon.com opinion piece, provides a refutation of the points in the previous Time article. While he doesn’t challenge the underlying premise that the U.S. government is acting in ways detrimental to and incompatible with our Constitution, he does question the conclusion Time reached, that Americans just don’t care.

No matter how corrupt and sloppy the establishment press becomes, they always find a way to go lower. Time Magazine has just published what it purports to be a news article by Massimo Calabresi claiming that “nobody cares” about the countless abuses of spying powers by the Bush administration; that “Americans are ready to trade diminished privacy, and protection from search and seizure, in exchange for the promise of increased protection of their physical security”; and that the case against unchecked government surveillance powers “hasn’t convinced the people.” Not a single fact — not one — is cited to support these sweeping, false opinions.

Worse still — way worse — this “news article” decrees the Bush administration to be completely innocent, even well-motivated, even in those instances where technical, irrelevant lawbreaking has been found…

Does Calabresi or his Time editors have the slightest idea how secret, illegal spying powers have been used, towards what ends they’ve been employed and with what motives? No, they have absolutely no idea. Not even members of Congressional Intelligence Committees know because the Bush administration has kept all of that concealed. So Time just makes up facts to defend the Bush administration with wholly baseless statements that one would expect to come pouring out of the mouths only of Dana Perino and Bill Kristol — the “motivating factor” for secret, illegal spying was nothing “other than law and order or national security.” This article literally has more factual errors — pure, retraction-level falsehoods — than it has paragraphs. It makes Joe Klein look like a knowledgable and conscientious surveillance expert. It’s one of the most falsehood-plagued articles I’ve seen in quite some time.

The proposition that “polls consistently” find that Americans don’t mind incursions into their civil liberties is a rank falsehood.

Read the full article for a well-supported contention that Americans do care about the situation. What to do about it may well be the most important question in the upcoming election.

CategoryGovernment, Laws, Society | Comment1 Comment »

Tags:
March 22nd, 2008

Do Americans Care About Big Brother?

Via Time Magazine online:

A quick tally of the record of civil liberties erosion in the United States since 9/11 suggests that the majority of Americans are ready to trade diminished privacy, and protection from search and seizure, in exchange for the promise of increased protection of their physical security. Polling consistently supports that conclusion, and Congress has largely behaved accordingly, granting increased leeway to law enforcement and the intelligence community to spy and collect data on Americans. Even when the White House, the FBI or the intelligence agencies have acted outside of laws protecting those rights — such as the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act — the public has by and large shrugged and, through their elected representatives, suggested changing the laws to accommodate activities that may be in breach of them.

In all the examples of diminished civil liberties, there are few, if any, where the motivating factor was something other than law and order or national security. There are no scandalous examples of the White House using the Patriot Act powers for political purposes or of individual agents using them for personal gain. The Justice IG report released Thursday, for example, examined some 50,000 National Security Letters issued in 2006 to see whether the FBI misused that specialized kind of warrantless subpoena. The IG found some continuing abuse of the power, but blamed it for the most part on sloppiness and bad management, not nefarious intent. In a press release accompanying the report, Fine said, “The FBI and Department of Justice have shown a commitment to addressing these problems.”

For now, however, civil libertarians will have to continue to argue that the danger lies not in how the government’s expanded powers are being used now, but how they might be used in the future. So far, that argument hasn’t convinced the people.

There’s an old joke; The two most destructive attitudes in society are ignorance and apathy…but I don’t know and I don’t care. It seems this may no longer be a joke.

Do the words attributed to Ben Franklin apply here? “Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety“, used as a motto on the title page of An Historical Review of the Constitution and Government of Pennsylvania (1759). It could be argued that the colonialists could not envision the threats we now face and that Franklin (or Richard Jackson or whoever) would not have been so absolute in saying that had they lived today.

Is security and national defense sufficient cause to restrict liberty and add conditions to our freedoms? Or are those concepts being used by a malevolent government in order to suppress dissent and control the population through fear and intimidation?

These are perhaps the most important questions we face as we move into the 21st century.

CategoryGovernment, Laws, Society | CommentNo Comments »

Tags:
March 17th, 2008

English police want a children’s DNA database

Primary school children should be eligible for the DNA database if they exhibit behaviour indicating they may become criminals in later life, according to Britain’s most senior police forensics expert.Gary Pugh, director of forensic sciences at Scotland Yard and the new DNA spokesman for the Association of Chief Police Officers (Acpo), said a debate was needed on how far Britain should go in identifying potential offenders, given that some experts believe it is possible to identify future offending traits in children as young as five.’If we have a primary means of identifying people before they offend, then in the long-term the benefits of targeting younger people are extremely large,’ said Pugh. ‘You could argue the younger the better. Criminologists say some people will grow out of crime; others won’t. We have to find who are possibly going to be the biggest threat to society.’

Pugh admitted that the deeply controversial suggestion raised issues of parental consent, potential stigmatisation and the role of teachers in identifying future offenders, but said society needed an open, mature discussion on how best to tackle crime before it took place. There are currently 4.5 million genetic samples on the UK database – the largest in Europe – but police believe more are required to reduce crime further. ‘The number of unsolved crimes says we are not sampling enough of the right people,’ Pugh told The Observer. However, he said the notion of universal sampling – everyone being forced to give their genetic samples to the database – is currently prohibited by cost and logistics.

A recent report from the think-tank Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) called for children to be targeted between the ages of five and 12 with cognitive behavioural therapy, parenting programmes and intensive support. Prevention should start young, it said, because prolific offenders typically began offending between the ages of 10 and 13. Julia Margo, author of the report, entitled ‘Make me a Criminal’, said: ‘You can carry out a risk factor analysis where you look at the characteristics of an individual child aged five to seven and identify risk factors that make it more likely that they would become an offender.’ However, she said that placing young children on a database risked stigmatising them by identifying them in a ‘negative’ way.

Shami Chakrabarti, director of the civil rights group Liberty, denounced any plan to target youngsters. ‘Whichever bright spark at Acpo thought this one up should go back to the business of policing or the pastime of science fiction novels,’ she said. ‘The British public is highly respectful of the police and open even to eccentric debate, but playing politics with our innocent kids is a step too far.’

Last week it emerged that the number of 10 to 18-year-olds placed on the DNA database after being arrested will have reached around 1.5 million this time next year. Since 2004 police have had the power to take DNA samples from anyone over the age of 10 who is arrested, regardless of whether they are later charged, convicted, or found to be innocent. (Source)

One has to wonder if children who refuse to believe in gods or otherwise think for themselves will be suspect.

signature

CategoryGovernment, In the News, International, Laws | Comment1 Comment »

Tags:
January 17th, 2008

North Dakota Judge Gets it Wrong

Posted to CircleID by Al Iverson:

…WAY wrong. This is just mind blowing.

Ever been prosecuted for tracking spam? Running a traceroute? Doing a zone transfer? Asking a public internet server for public information that it is configured to provide upon demand?

No? Well, David Ritz has. And amazingly, he lost the case.

Here are just a few of the gems that the court has the audacity to call ”conclusions of law.” Read them while you go donate to David’s legal defense fund. He got screwed here, folks, and needs your help.

“Ritz’s behavior in conducting a zone transfer was unauthorized within the meaning of the North Dakota Computer Crime Law.” You might not know what a zone transfer is, but I do. It’s asking a DNS server for all the particular public info it provides about a given domain. This is a common task performed by system administrators for many purposes. The judge is saying that DNS zone transfers are now illegal in North Dakota.

“The Court rejects the test for “authorization” articulated by defendant’s expert, Lawrence Baldwin. To find all access “authorized” which is successful would essentially turn the computer crime laws of this country upside down.” That’s untrue. The judge is trying to hang David out to dry, even when provided evidence of what actually constitutes hacking or cracking. Accessing a server on the public internet that is set up to provide that public info is not a crime, and saying that it is not a crime doesn’t suddenly damage computer crime law. The judge just amended the definition of “unauthorized” to include public internet servers that were expressly configured to provide info to anybody who asks for that info.

“Ritz has engaged in a variety of activities without authorization on the Internet. Those activities include port scanning, hijacking computers, and the compilation and publication of Whois lookups without authorization from Network Solutions.” I’m not touching the “hijacking computers” statement—who knows what the judge means, and I don’t think it’s wise to assume that the judge’s definition matches the common one. But what really jumps out here is this: Publication of WHOIS information. You know, business records. Who owns a domain. Public information. The judge has arbitrarily decided that it is illegal to take information from WHOIS data—necessary information when compiling a report on a company or activity, to make sure you’re talking about the right person—and put it in a spam report or on a website.

Mickey Chandler calls the court documents in this case “12 pages of bad law,” and I couldn’t agree more.

It appears this North Dakota judge hasn’t a clue about the internet and didn’t bother to consult anyone who does.  No court should be allowed to pass judgment on a citizen without a full understanding of the elements of a case.  In addition to contributing to the defendant’s fund, this story should be circulated widely to encourage the higher courts to overturn the sentence and reprimand the judge.

CategoryLaws, On the Web, Technology | CommentNo Comments »

Tags: