Not allowed to be blasphemous?

A lot of you will disagree with me on this one, but the UN is possibly one of the most useless and corrupt organizations in existence today. The ideology behind the UN is nice enough, but in execution, it has shown itself to be inefficient, blind, and often backward. This new resolution to make blasphemy illegal is just another example of how corrupt the UN is.

The law calls making “acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from defamation of religions” illegalĀ . In other words, you can’t talk smack about religion, because apparently some people get a trifle upset. There’s a clear agenda behind this: Islamic countries are tired of people making the link between terrorism and Islamic faith. Newsflash: there is a direct link.

One guy in India was arrested for ‘hurting the feelings of Muslims’. Great. I was worried my own government was slowly becoming a police state. Now I’m going to have to watch what I say as well? I fucking dare them to come to my door and arrest me. I’ll make such a stink they’ll think twice about pulling this kind of shit on anyone. Hey UN, stay out of my house, stay out of my life, and deal with the fact people are allowed to say whatever the hell they want.

Comments (5)

  • avatar


    I have to agree the UN is a massively corrupt political entity. Can anyone name anything good the UN has accomplished recently?

    I usually find Hitchens and Dobbs hard to take. But I have to admit the prospect of bulldozing the UN and using the money we spend to support it for something else (Canadian arts funding anyone?) has a certain appeal.

  • avatar



  • avatar


    I know that it’s very chic to bash the UN, particularly in the US (although it is more the preserve of the religious fundamentalists), but I was surprised to see an atheist accept something without examining the evidence, something I as a theist would surely be mocked for.

    “Illegal in the US, if the UN has its way”. Ummm, no. This is a UN General Assembly Resolution. In no place in the UN Charter does the General Assembly have any power to impose law on Member States. Decisions of the Security Council, sure, they are binding under international law on Members States (but limited to the Chapter VII powers) – but the pronouncements of the General Assembly have no binding status under international law, or any domestic law. So the General Assembly can resolve all it wants, it ultimately remains an aspirational statement. You know, like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which was passed under a binding Resolution of the General Assembly, and is ignored.

    Or, y’know, the prohibition of using force against another Member State. And we all know how well certain nations have abided by that one (which, by the way, actually IS enforceable under international law).

Leave a Comment

Scroll to top