The UN forum on Racism has passed a resolution condemning defamation of religions.

Not individuals right to their religious views mind you, defamation of the religion itself.  So saying something like "Scientology is a crackpot cult that just wants people's money", that's probably defamation.  Apparently this is no longer allowed. 

The representatives from Canada summarized the widespread complaints about this resolution best:

"It is individuals who have rights, not religions," Ottawa's representative told the body. "Canada believes that to extend (the notion of) defamation beyond its proper scope would jeopardize the fundamental right to freedom of expression, which includes freedom of expression on religious subjects."

All individuals have the right to believe what they like.  One cannot discriminate against a believer because they are a Scientologist, just to pick an example, or incite hatred or violence towards them.  They are free people who can choose to believe in what they like, I can disagree with them but I cannot discriminate against them for those beliefs no more than they can discriminate against my Bayesian Catholic beliefs.  

But I also have the right to free speech which allows me to say their religion is stupid, its a sham made up by a science fiction writer on a bet and is just trying to get peoples money.  Similarly, the now very angry Scientologist could denounce my Church for many of its grevious views and horrible hypocrisy.  No problem.  There is no reason we can't allow people to discuss the pros and cons of different religions while still protecting the right to freedom of religion.  My discussing your religion openly, whatever religion it is, does not detract from your faith or diminish your rights.  

This is essentially the same discussion that arose after the cartoons of the prophet Muhammad in the Danish newspapers.  Freedom of religion doesn't mean we don't talk about, critique, ridicule and analyze your religion.  It just means that no matter what we think of it, we don't interfere with you.  If someone can explain what is wrong with that line of thinking and why this defamation idea is good please do enlighten me.