Hillarysworld

Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Post Info
TOPIC: Hillary Versus State (WSJ.com 11/05/09)


SuperModerator

Status: Offline
Posts: 1788
Date:
Hillary Versus State (WSJ.com 11/05/09)
Permalink  
 


This is a brief article, so I'll just post the whole thing:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703740004574513692621084128.html?mod=WSJ_topics_obama

First the good news: U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton believes in free speech. The not-so-good news is that her department may not be of quite the same view.

In a short speech last week marking the publication of State's annual report on international religious freedom, Mrs. Clinton took aim at various attempts—frequently spearheaded by the 56-member Organization of the Islamic Conference—to criminalize free speech in the name of protecting religious sensitivities. "Some claim that the best way to protect the freedom of religion is to implement so-called antidefamation policies that would restrict freedom of expression and the freedom of religion. I strongly disagree," she said. "The protection of speech about religion is particularly important since persons of different faiths will inevitably hold divergent views on religious questions."

Just so. So we were puzzled to discover that last month the U.S. cosponsored a resolution with Egypt to. . . limit free speech to protect religious sensitivities.

The resolution, passed by the U.N Human Rights Council, contains the kind of fuzzy language that will surely be used as ammunition by countries seeking to muzzle critics of Islam. It condemns "negative stereotyping of religions and racial groups" and "urges States to take effective measures…to address and combat such incidents." And it speaks about the media's "moral and social" responsibility in "combating racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance." Defending the resolution, State Department official Douglas Griffiths described it as "a manifestation of the Obama Administration's commitment to multilateral engagement." Mr. Griffiths was quoted by a U.N. notetaker as calling it a bridge over an "unhelpful divide."

When President Obama decided in March to join the Human Rights Council—another reversal of Bush Administration policy—U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice explained that "by working from within, we can make the council a more effective forum to promote and protect human rights." Mrs. Clinton might want to tell her colleague that splitting the difference with Islamists over free speech is probably not the best way of going about that.


__________________

4145952823_2e0edce16f.jpg

Nobody puts THIS baby in the corner!


Moderator

Status: Offline
Posts: 1695
Date:
Permalink  
 

we can make the council a more effective forum to promote and protect human rights."

Clearly that's not Obama's goal.  If it is, he needs to start protecting the rights of Americans by refraining from trying to diminish them at every turn.

Hillary has stated clearly how she feels about this.  I don't see what more she can do.  I'm glad that the article clearly stated that Hillary was part of this.

__________________
It was we, the people; not we, the white male citizens; nor yet we, the male citizens; but we, the whole people, who formed the Union.... Men, their rights and nothing more; women, their rights and nothing less.  ~Susan B. Anthony



Diamond

Status: Offline
Posts: 1191
Date:
Permalink  
 

Well, of course o-usurper is on the side of limiting free speech against Muslims.  We saw how outraged he got when a Muslim shot up Ft. Hood, killing and wounding FORTY-THREE PEOPLE.

Obama wants to make sure that Islam is not opposed.  But it is plain to more and more people that it MUST be opposed!!

__________________

Barack/Barry:  If you're NOT LEGIT, then you MUST QUIT!!

Page 1 of 1  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.

Tweet this page Post to Digg Post to Del.icio.us


Create your own FREE Forum
Report Abuse
Powered by ActiveBoard