Speak. Or maybe Not.

Friday’s Union Leader includes an ‘In Brief’ piece from the AP on a movement within the UN to push for a global Blasphemy treaty.  The primary purveyors of the initiative are the 56 member Organization of the Islamic Conference.  AP suggests that such a treaty will meet with resistance from western nations with free speech laws, but I can’t see how that’s possible.   The double standards in what is left of Western free speech are open to the idea of using these laws to punish unprotected classes already.  Hate speech laws mention religion and gender for example, but will never apply to Hate related attacks (whatever the hell that actually means) on heterosexuals and non-gay Christians.  Jews will likewise be excluded from protection on the world stage.  So the addition of another layer of law to protect Muslims from blasphemy is just sauce for the Qu'ranic goose.    

But the biggest hypocrisy of all is that blasphemous speech—that's speech of any kind about Muslims—is already protected out fear of retaliation (based on hatred for non-Muslims) from radical Muslims and their fellow travelers, who are immune to existing hate speech laws the same way other 'protected' groups fear no legal action for their own hateful speech against anyone who opposes them. 

A world held hostage is not about to balk at any such referendum.  They may not all sign the treaty but I certainly can't see anyone trying to stop it.  But those who don’t will be setting themselves up for further extortion by a politically correct class willing to attack anyone who fails to line up behind their definition of diversity, civil rights, and free speech