In my previous post, I posted the full text of the non-binding resolution on defamation of religion, passed by the UN General Assembly late last year. We need to be able to consult the full text because the devil is in the detail. Much of the discussion on the internet seems to make assumptions about what it might say, rather than what it actually does say. For a more authoritative publication of the text, go here, where you can find it with difficulty.
It should be pointed out that much of the text is innocuous or even commendable. E.g., it deplores literal (physical) violence, or incitement to violence, against people on the ground of religion. There are also commendable statements about the importance of education to both boys and girls, and much other material that is arguably good stuff for the UN to be saying.
But to see how sweeping and potentially draconian it is in restricting free speech, you need to dig into the detail and try to work out what it would mean in practice.
The main purpose seems to be to stop "defamation of religion" which seems to include claims that something in Islam encourages violence and terrorism. So, Fitna would seem to be a classic case of "defamation of religion". But there are other phrases that would seem to require prevention of certain kinds of blasphemy - e.g. the production of images on the internet desecrating religious symbols seems to be condemned by this resolution.
Because it's written in UN-style gobbledegook, it's very difficult to pin down what it would mean in practice, i.e. exactly what laws it would require nations to pass if the same wording actually became a basis for a UN Convention, and if various nations then signed it. That vagueness is itself cause for concern. But the aim does seem to be primarily to stop people saying highly critical things about Islam.
I don't know that anything in such a book as Richard Dawkins The God Delusion would necessarily come under "defamation of religion", although the comparison with other forms of delusion might go close. But anyway, large tracts of Sam Harris's The End of Faith would probably qualify. Likewise the anti-Muslim views of someone like Mark Steyn. It is possible that a great deal of robust criticism or satire of doctrines, religious institutions, holy books, and cultures could end up being prohibited if this resolution were given a higher status than just a non-binding resolution of the Assembly.
I'd be interested in anyone else's interpretations of how it would work if it actually became international law, based on a close reading of the actual text.