Submitted to a Candid World

A busy weekend permits only this commentary: Americans on both the far left and the far right, and of all shades in between, ought to agree that this simply will not do:

[A proposed United Nations Human Rights Commission] resolution deems offending Islamic sensitivities a “serious affront to human dignity” which could lead to “social disharmony”, “violations of human rights” and “incitement to religious hatred in general and against Islam in particular”. If passed, the resulting binding resolution would find its way into various UN documents all of which would require that UN member states at “local, national and international levels” start restricting the free speech of citizens to prevent public criticism of religious beliefs, particularly Islamic belief.

As we’ve noted here before, the United States unquestionably continues to lead the world in its respect for free speech. This is not patriotic jingoism: it’s true. Even when it comes to the most uncomfortable, cringe-inducing, or dangerous types of speech (libel and incitements to racial violence, cf. the contrary experience our British allies), we trust our citizens more than most to come to sensible conclusions on their own, and steadfastly refuse to criminalize mere words, except where they threaten more than offense.

Truly free speech is a recent liberty, one that we earned the hard way, after struggling through the intrigue, espionage, and fear of the early twentieth century. Mindful of the importance of this issue, I’m confident our leaders won’t surrender it should this resolution pass, hopefully with a minimum of culture war bluster. Defending the right to free speech in this situation isn’t an anti-Islamic thing, it’s not an anti-religion thing, and it’s not an anti-UN thing. It’s just the right thing to do.