Jonathan Turley has an excellent piece in USA Today where he highlights the United Nation’s latest blunder–limiting free speech in the name of religious tolerance.  

While attracting surprisingly little attention, the Obama administration supported the effort of largely Muslim nations in the U.N. Human Rights Council to recognize exceptions to free speech for any “negative racial and religious stereotyping.” The exception was made as part of a resolution supporting free speech that passed this month, but it is the exception, not the rule that worries civil libertarians. Though the resolution was passed unanimously, European and developing countries made it clear that they remain at odds on the issue of protecting religions from criticism. It is viewed as a transparent bid to appeal to the “Muslim street” and our Arab allies, with the administration seeking greater coexistence through the curtailment of objectionable speech. Though it has no direct enforcement (and is weaker than earlier versions), it is still viewed as a victory for those who sought to juxtapose and balance the rights of speech and religion. 

What’s really fascinating (but sadly, not so surprising) is that the effort, led by Egypt, had an unlikely partner–the United States. 

In the resolution, the administration aligned itself with Egypt, which has long been criticized for prosecuting artists, activists and journalists for insulting Islam. For example, Egypt recently banned a journal that published respected poet Helmi Salem merely because one of his poems compared God to a villager who feeds ducks and milks cows. The Egyptian ambassador to the U.N., Hisham Badr, wasted no time in heralding the new consensus with the U.S. that “freedom of expression has been sometimes misused” and showing that the “true nature of this right” must yield government limitations. His U.S. counterpart, Douglas Griffiths, heralded “this joint project with Egypt” and supported the resolution to achieve “tolerance and the dignity of all human beings.” While not expressly endorsing blasphemy prosecutions, the administration departed from other Western allies in supporting efforts to balance free speech against the protecting of religious groups. 

How would a similar resolution aimed at the “Christian street” be viewed? Negatively of course… and rightly so.  

What’s on full display here is the Obama Administration’s embarassing lack of historical perspective.  Have they forgotten Andres Serrano’s “Piss Christ,” Chris Ofili’s portrait of the Virgin Mary encrusted in elephant dung, or how about the more mainstream attacks on Christianity such as Dan Brown’s Da Vinci Code.  Would these works of “art” be considered offensive speech?  Would they fall under this resolution’s definition of speech that has “negative racial and religious stereotyping”?  Must they be curtailed?