Internet Video Conferencing

I was going through reading articles when this one popped up. It’s about a resolution soon to be put into effect in Britain which pretty much states that no one can have an opinion, stereotype or their own thoughts on the Muslim world. Here’s the article:

“Religious groups and free-speech advocates are banding together to fight a United Nations resolution they say is being used to spread Sharia law to the Western world and to intimidate anyone who criticizes Islam.

The non-binding resolution on “Combating the Defamation of Religion” is intended to curtail speech that offends religion — particularly Islam.

Pakistan and the Organization of the Islamic Conference introduced the measure to the U.N. Human Rights Council in 1999. It was amended to include religions other than Islam, and it has passed every year since.

In 2005, Yemen successfully brought a similar resolution before the General Assembly. Now the 192-nation Assembly is set to vote on it again.

The non-binding Resolution 62/145, which was adopted in 2007, says it “notes with deep concern the intensification of the campaign of defamation of religions and the ethnic and religious profiling of Muslim minorities in the aftermath of 11 September 2001.”

It “stresses the need to effectively combat defamation of all religions and incitement to religious hatred, against Islam and Muslims in particular.”

But some critics believe the resolution is a dangerous threat to freedom of speech everywhere.

The U.S. government mission in Geneva, in a statement, told the U.N. Human Rights Council in July that “defamation-related laws have been abused by governments and used to restrict human rights” around the world, and sometimes Westerners have been caught in the web.

Critics give some recent news events as examples of how the U.N. “blasphemy resolution” has emboldened Islamic authorities and threatened Westerners:

– On Oct. 3 in Great Britain, three men were charged for plotting to kill the publisher of the novel “The Jewel of Medina,” which gives a fictional account of the Prophet Muhammad and his child bride. FOXNews.com reported U.S. publisher Random House Inc., was going to release the book but stopped it from hitting shelves after it claimed that “credible and unrelated sources” said the book could incite violence by a “small, radical segment.”

– An Afghan student is on death row for downloading an article about the role of women in Islam, FOXNews.com also reported.

– In December 2007 “a court reportedly sentenced two foreigners to six months in prison for allegedly marketing a book deemed offensive to Aisha, one of the Prophet Muhammad’s wives,” the U.S. government said.

– A British teacher was sentenced to 15 days in jail in Sudan for offending Islam by allowing students to name the class teddy bear Muhammad in November 2007.

– In February 2007 in Egypt an Internet blogger was sentenced to four years in prison for writing a post that critiqued Islam.

– In 2004, Dutch filmmaker Theo Van Gogh was murdered after the release of his documentary highlighting the abuse of Muslim women.

“It’s obviously intended to have an intimidating effect on people expressing criticism of radical Islam, and the idea that you can have a defamation of a religion like this, I think, is a concept fundamentally foreign to our system of free expression in the United States,” said former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton.”

Now does anyone believe this is a GOOD thing? Or is anyone else with me in thinking that this is completely immoral to even TRY to regulate how other individuals view a certain religion?

http://geneva.usmission.gov/Press2008/July/0715DefamationReligions.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,432502,00.html
To those adding that it’s simply for people to stop criticizing religion, think about this: freedom of speech means that those who want to particpate in their gay pride parade can do so. It also means if I want to go up and down the streets screaming about God I can do so. It means if you’re Muslim and someone doesn’t agree with your religion, you have the right to defend yourself but you’re probably not going to change their mind. This particular thing that they’re trying to pass is regulating everything to the point where radicalists are going to have control of most things. I don’t know about you, but I don’t want any religion, creed or anything running the world. I’d rather a melting pot.
Aww hello Beetroot Yourself. I hope you have a BLESSED day sugar. =)
Betroot EDIT: It shows hunny.
Ben:
I never said UK. The article said UK. It said it right there in the text. Again, this is an article from a news source. My opinion wasn’t in quotations. And we do have the right to put whatever muck we want on the internet. Have you seen any porn lately? Would you not agree that it’s basically lies? People put up websites applauding 9/11. People put up websites defaming Christianity. People put up websites putting down gays and lesbians. There are so many different sites out there who “lie” all the time. Why should a couple websites who were doing the same thing as these others but towards Muslims be any different? In case you were wondering, I am a little bit educated and think before I speak.

hange Type Size Legislators see twist on threats
Mary Jo Pitzl
The Arizona Republic
Feb. 25, 2007 12:00 AM

Two lawmakers in as many months have gone public about threats they received over their stance on illegal-immigration bills.

It’s a sign of the fevered sentiments about the issue, and, some fear, a breakdown of civility in the Legislature, where there is little consensus on what the state should do about the issue.

And it’s a case study in the power of the Internet to quickly spread a message, as well as the unpredictable and often abusive caroms those messages can take. advertisement

Last week, Republican Rep. Bill Konopnicki told fellow members of the House of Representatives that he and his family had received threats because of his “no” vote on a bill that would have denied workers’ compensation benefits to undocumented immigrants.

One of those threats came in a letter to his home in Safford, which shook him to the point that he decided to go public.

“I never thought that I would fear for my safety or for the safety of my family when I took my seat as a member of the Arizona House of Representatives,” the three-term lawmaker said in an emotional floor speech.

His experience came several weeks after Rep. Kyrsten Sinema, D-Phoenix, was flooded with e-mail threats over her sponsorship of a bill that would have banned citizen patrol groups unaffiliated with law enforcement. The bill prompted an immediate, and sharp, response after the Minuteman Project issued a news release opposing the legislation.

Sinema publicly complained about e-mails that threatened her with physical harm and rape. She asked House leaders to postpone a hearing on her bill, citing security concerns. They didn’t and the hearing proceeded peacefully.

The hostile and often profane comments in the e-mails go beyond the frustration many people feel about immigration, lawmakers say.

“They didn’t say, ‘We’ll kill you,’ but the threat was there,” Konopnicki said of the messages he received.

Likewise, Sinema said she feared for her safety after the string of threats filled up her e-mail and voice-mail boxes.

Threats called common

Some lawmakers, including House Speaker Jim Weiers, said threats to lawmakers are common and that the two recent cases are simply the only lawmakers to go public about it.

Rep. Warde Nichols, R-Gilbert, said he received death threats after he sponsored legislation two years ago that would have defined marriage as between one man and one woman. Unfamiliar vehicles with unknown occupants would park outside his home, he said. He also said he received pornographic videotapes in the mail in unmarked boxes, which his kids rushed to open, requiring lengthy explanations when he returned home at night.

Nichols said he kept the harassment quiet, sharing the threats with the state Department of Public Safety.

“I think when you put it out there, it escalates things,” he said.

Word spreads fast on Net

But the Internet reaches farther and faster than any lawmaker’s statements from the Capitol and can take a local issue and give it international resonance.

Sinema said that’s what happened to her. Her bill on patrol groups caught fire once the Minuteman group issued a news release opposing the legislation, catching the attention of Web sites and bloggers nationwide and beyond.

“What happens when they do that is the crazies come out,” Sinema said, adding that the Minutemen in no way advocated violent or profane responses.

John Craft, a professor at Arizona State University’s Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communication, said the impersonal nature of the Internet makes it easier for people to send abusive and insulting messages.

“You’re not looking the person in the eye as you’re calling them names, and I think that makes the difference,” he said.

Couple the Internet with the combustible immigration issue, and one person’s stand in one corner of Arizona can circle the globe.

Even the Catholic Church has not been immune from over-the-top criticism for its position in support of migrants’ rights.

“I’ve had to call the police,” said Ronald Johnson Jr., executive director of the Arizona Catholic Conference, explaining that a letter in 2005 drew threats.

Johnson said nothing in his experience compares with the passions immigration ignites. Sure, there some pushback for the church’s position on abortion and gay rights, he said.

“We touch all the hot buttons, but immigration tops them all,” Johnson said.

Maintaining civility

At the Legislature, Speaker Weiers is trying to maintain a civil tone as talk again turns to immigration issues, spokesman Barrett Marson said.

“The problem is, passions run high,” Marson said.

Konopnicki said he had asked Weiers to talk to Rep. Russell Pearce, R-Mesa, whose e-mail alerts to constituents on immigration bills triggered the threatening messages. One of those e-mails highlighted Konopnicki’s “no” vote on a bill that would have denied workers’ compensation coverage to workers who are found to be in the country illegally.

Konopnicki, a business owner, said he voted against the bill because he believed it would open employers up to lawsuits, even if the employer had done everything in his power to determine a worker’s legal status. The bill died on a tie vote.

Pearce did not want to talk about his fellow Republican’s problems, other than to say that he and Konopnicki have long disagreed on how to resolve immigration issues.

An e-mail that Pearce sent to supporters portrayed the Safford Republican as working counter to immigration reform.

“Bill Konopnicki continues to fight any real immigration enforcement,” the e-mail said. “He has fought me for the past 5 to 6 years on employer’s (sic) sanctions or any real enforcement.”

Konopnicki said he raised the issue publicly because he believes legislative discussion on immigration has devolved to an almost McCarthy-like tone.

“(W)e are losing focus on the merits of the issues and are instead relegated to bearing insults and accusations,” he said in his floor speech. “I can’t help but recall the now famous words of the attorney, Joe Welch, when he asked Senator McCarthy: ‘Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of honor?’ ”

Pearce said his e-mails are a way to keep people up to date on issues.

“We always remind people of politeness and decorum,” he said. “We don’t ask them to attack anybody.”

Rep. Pete Rios, a 22-year veteran of the Legislature, said the roiling emotions on immigration have not had a public parallel since the impeachment trial of then-Gov. Evan Mecham 20 years ago.

“When it comes to immigration, it brings out a fringe element that says you’ve got to deny everything,” said Rios, a Hayden Democrat who is Latino. Anything short of total denial brands a lawmaker unpatriotic and worse.

Rios said he has heard it all, although like other lawmakers, he said the threats against family are a new twist. He said he is sympathetic with Konopnicki’s plight.

“He probably hasn’t experienced it as much as those of us because he’s a Republican, and he’s not a minority,” he said.

Case # 1 –
Final Project -The Energy Cooperative is a non-profit organization (501C3) dedicated to providing:

1) Education to the public regarding Energy information, new technology updates, monitoring viable new start-up energy companies and providing a public forum for complaints on its website.

2) Providing new alternative energy companies with the opportunity to dialogue with each other. Provide these new companies with a central hub to share new technological information and breakthroughs, standards, regulations etc.

The Energy Cooperative has a headquarters in Chicago but affiliates which allow for colleague luncheons and public conferences all over the U.S. and in three cities abroad: Copenhagen, Milan and New Delhi. They are all united via the web. There are currently 400,000 members worldwide (professionals in the energy field and non-professionals who have interests in the field) who pay yearly dues (professional and non-professional) to their affiliate Cooperative. Part of those dues are then repatriated to the home office to pay for upkeep of the website, the yearly international conference etc.

There is a Board of Directors that meets by Conference call once a month. These Board members are self employed consultants so they owe no allegiance to any particular company. They have to sign a statement to that effect before they are appointed. They receive a nominal fee for directing their affiliate and being on the Board of Directors.

Members are supposed to vote on matters regarding any initiatives, policy changes, large budgeted items over $100, etc. that will effect the larger membership.

You are a Consultant and member of the Board of Directors and before you is the following proposal:

One of the Board of Directors has asked approval for the Directors, when calling their personal potential clients, to be able to state, ” I am calling as Director of the Energy Cooperative” The Board has asked you to preview this proposal before the Board Meeting.

Now after reading this what do you think are some ethical issues or concerns in this case study.

Best answer will get high rating:)