The below is taken from a Wall Street Journal article on the upcoming Durban II conference.
The draft declaration… goes after the West’s freedom of speech and antiterror laws under the guise of protecting religion (read: Islam) from “defamation.” The entire West will be in the dock for allegedly persecuting Muslims. “The most serious manifestations of defamation of religions are the increase in Islamophobia and the worsening of the situation of Muslim minorities around the world,” the draft reads. “Islamophobia” is a term used to brand any criticism of Islam as a hate crime.
The Islamic terrorists who have killed hundreds of thousands of their co-religionists get a free pass. Instead, the draft calls for a media code of conduct and “internationally binding normative standards . . . that can provide adequate guarantees against defamation of religions.” If this sounds like censorship, that’s because it is.
…If the Durban II drafters have their way, any challenge of Islamic teachings, including teachings used to justify violence, would be taboo. Reprinting the Danish Muhammad cartoons, exploited by Muslim agitators in 2006 to incite riots around the world, would be a criminal offense. Even gross human-rights violations in Islamic countries — such as stoning adulterers in Iran — could be immune from criticism.
It seems pretty clear that this is just another attempt at special pleading by the religious, in this case Islam. The Canadian government has already said it will not participate in this farce and it seems likely that the US will follow suit. It’s probably too much to hope that the EU will take a similar stand.
Free speech is a core western value and we cannot accept any erosion. My advice to Muslims (or anyone else) is simple, if you can’t deal with open debate, if your faith is so weak that it cannot stand up to any criticism, then you need to seriously examine the validity of that faith. The future has no place for ancient magical superstitions.
Edit: I take the point made by commenters below. What I should have said is I hope the future has no place for ancient magical superstitions, but people will have to embrace reality on their own and in their own time. It certainly isn’t something I could or would force on them.
Filed under: debate, religion | Tagged: free speech, Human Rights, islam, UN |
colmobri
cru5ad3r
Jason
larry1506
JohnM
peterohara
robertbennett69
stilldoubting
Sully
Mid-west Humanists - An Irish Atheist Community 
The last sentence does invalidate the entire post. The author laments about those who try to censor those who speak out against Islam and then concludes with a sentence that sounds a lot like censorship of those who speak for Islam/belief in a higher being. Those who believe in “ancient magical superstitions” have the right to do so, now and in the future.
Why so? The future SHOULD have no place for ancient magical superstitions aside from gathering dusts in our libraries or being recited to our children like the fairytales that they are, though I would never want to inflict the horrors of the Koran or the Bible upon ANY child
I think the last sentence invalidates your entire post. I suggest you delete it, and end it with what you now have as the penultimate one.