16 posts tagged “defamation of religions”
UN Watch published, in their blog, links to two apparently recent proposals for the protocol to be added to ICERD by the Ad Hoc Cmte. for the Elaboration of Complementary Standards. [The pdf files contained scanned images, not text, so OCR was required. The format will not be an exact match and there may be errors I failed to spot. ] [Emphasis added.]
Provisions of these
proposals are in dispute. It appears that the
committee has
been bogged down in procedural matters & disputes so that our
freedom of expression may be safe for a few months at least, until
their next session.
To decode the substance of the highlighted expressions, we must keep one linguistic abuse constantly in mind:Proposals by Pakistan on behalf of OIC
1. State Parties States shall prohibit any propaganda, practice, or organisation aimed at justifying or encouraging any form of racial, ethnic, national and religious hatred or discrimination targeting people of particular groups, such as religious groups, refugees, asylum seekers, internally displaced persons, stateless individuals, migrants and migrant workers, communities based on descent, such as people of African descent, indigenous people, minorities and people under foreign occupation.
2. State Parties shall immediately undertake to adopt positive measures designed to eliminate all incitement to racial, ethnic, national and religious hatred or discrimination in and, to this end, shall commit themselves, inter alia:
- to declare an offence punishable by law all dissemination of ideas aimed at racial, ethnic, national and religious discrimination or hatred, as well as all acts of violence or incitement to such acts against any particular group of persons;
- to declare illegal and prohibit organizations, and also organized and all other propaganda activities, which encourage and incite racial hatred or discrimination, and shall declare participation in such organizations or activities as an offence punishable by law;
- not to permit national or local public authorities incite racial, ethnic, national and religious hatred or discriininationg,
- not to permit political parties incite racial, ethnic, national and religious hatred or discrimination. .
- to strengthen their legislations or adopt necessary legal provisions to prohibit and suppress racist and xenophobic platforms and to discourage the integration of political parties who promote such platforms in govermnent alliances in order to legitimising the implementation of these platforms.
3. States Parties shall, in accordance with the human rights standards, declare illegal and to prohibit all organizations based on ideas or theories of superiority of one race or group of persons of one colour or ethnic origin, or which attempt to justify or promote national, racial and religious hatred and discrimination in any form.4. States Parties shall promulgate, where they do not exist, a specific legislation prohibiting any propaganda for war and any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence.
That boilerplate from the Durban II Preliminary Document conflates criticism of Islam with racism. Consequently, references to racism in subsequent documents must be read more broadly.4. Emphasizes the urgent need to address the scourges of anti-Semitism, Christianophobia, and Islamophobia as contemporary forms of racism as well as racial and violent movements based on racism and discriminatory ideas directed at African, Arab, Christian, Jewish, Muslim and other communities;
What constitutes incitement to religious
hatred? In effect, any negative expression regarding Islam.
This fact becomes clear when we examine the documents behind
previous resolutions: Fitna & the Danish
Cartoons. The Secretary General made the matter abundantly clear.
Reuters quotes U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon about Fitna:
“There is no justification for hate speech or incitement to violence,” Ban said in a statement. “The right of free expression is not at stake here.”
According to the Secretary General, a documentary juxtaposing verses from the Qur'an and the ravings of Imams with riots in the Arab street constitutes hate speech and incitement. Geert Wilders proved that the Qur'an inculcates hatred and preaching it incites violence. That is truth, not hate speech! The obvious intention and effect is to make all criticism of Islam a criminal offense.
If Article 20 of ICCPR was enforced, the Qur'an would have to be outlawed as propaganda for war and advocacy of religious hatred inciting violence.Article 20
- Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.
- Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.
It is likely that the OIC's proposal will be included, along with boilerplate from previous resolutions, in the anticipated Defamation of Religions resolution. The Nigerian proposal differs: it omits provisions 3 & 4.
Compare the OIC's proposal to Article 4 of the Ad Hoc Cmte Draft Document. See also my analysis of the Pakistan/OIC submission made last spring.
Source: Open Congress
A blog post about a hearing held recently by the Tom Lantos Human Rights Commission mentioned a Sense of the House resolution submitted by Representative Ted Poe,. Republican, of Texas and 12 Co-Sponsors:H.Res.763 - Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the United Nations resolutions on the "defamation of religions" are incompatible with the fundamental freedoms of individuals to freely exercise and peacefully express their religious beliefs.
Rep. Dan Burton [R, IN-5], Rep. James Forbes [R, VA-4], Rep. James Forbes [R, VA-4], Rep. Trent Franks [R, AZ-2], Rep. Duncan Hunter [R, CA-52], Rep. Bob Inglis [R, SC-4], Rep. Doug Lamborn [R, CO-5], Rep. Jeff Miller [R, FL-1], Rep. Joseph Pitts [R, PA-16], Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen [R, FL-18], Rep. Paul Ryan [R, WI-1], Rep. Paul Ryan [R, WI-1], Rep. Christopher Smith [R, NJ-4] and Rep. Zach Wamp [R, TN-3].
The resolution was introduced September 22 '09 and referred to the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
No news or blog coverage of the issue was found in the news section of the web page. Only 36 people had viewed it. A poll in the right sidebar shows 100% viewer support.
CRS summary from Thomas.
The text of the resolution follows, as found at Thomas.SUMMARY AS OF:
9/22/2009--Introduced.
Underscores the value of respectful speech while affirming that the freedoms of speech and religious exercise are integral to free societies and human dignity.
Urges the Secretary of State to make every effort to defeat the passage of resolutions on the "defamation of religions" at the United Nations and other resolutions or international instruments that threaten the free and peaceful exchange of ideas, beliefs, and truth claims.
Calls on the United Nations (U.N.) to abandon efforts to adopt the flawed concept of "defamation of religions."
Urges U.N. member states to focus on protecting the fundamental freedom of individuals to peacefully express their religious beliefs and to avoid supporting resolutions that threaten freedom of expression.
After reading the resolution and pasting its text into this blog post, I suspended my writing, and went immediately to http://www.congress.org/ where I entered my Zip Code and clicked the Federal Officials link, subsequently sending a strongly worded email to President Obama, my Senators and my Representative urging them to duplicate the resolution in the Senate and get it passed.111th CONGRESS1st Session
H. RES. 763Expressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the United Nations resolutions on the `defamation of religions' are incompatible with the fundamental freedoms of individuals to freely exercise and peacefully express their religious beliefs.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
September 22, 2009Mr. POE of Texas (for himself, Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN, Mr. FRANKS of Arizona, and Mr. INGLIS) submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs
RESOLUTIONExpressing the sense of the House of Representatives that the United Nations resolutions on the `defamation of religions' are incompatible with the fundamental freedoms of individuals to freely exercise and peacefully express their religious beliefs.
Whereas since 1999, the United Nations has annually passed a resolution on the `defamation of religions' in the Human Rights Council (previously the Commission on Human Rights) and in the General Assembly;
Whereas unlike traditional defamation laws, which punish false statements of fact that harm individual persons, measures prohibiting the `defamation of religions' punish the peaceful criticism of ideas;
Whereas United Nations resolutions on the `defamation of religions' contradict United States Constitutional protections of free speech and the free exercise of religion;
Whereas the concept of `defamation of religions' is fundamentally inconsistent with the principles outlined in the United Nations' founding documents, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which affirms the protection of persons, rather than ideas;
Whereas Article 18 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognizes that `Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance';
Whereas Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognizes that `Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers';
Whereas the sponsor of these United Nations resolutions, the Organization of the Islamic Conference, has indicated that it is seeking to create a legally binding mechanism to combat the `defamation of religions';
Whereas such resolutions provide international support for domestic anti-blasphemy laws in some countries;
Whereas domestic anti-blasphemy laws are often used by governments to punish the peaceful expression of disfavored religious beliefs and ideas;
Whereas the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights has confirmed that there is no international consensus on the concept of `defamation of religions', and multiple United Nations Special Rapporteurs have acknowledged that the difficulties in providing an objective definition of the term `defamation of religions' at the international level make the whole concept open to abuse;
Whereas the United States Constitution does not guarantee, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights does not recognize, the right to have one's beliefs protected from challenge or criticism, or the right not to be offended;
Whereas existing legal instruments already address discrimination, personal defamation, and incitement to violence in ways that are more carefully focused to address those specific problems without unduly threatening the rights of speech and religious free exercise; and
Whereas legal efforts alone cannot foster an environment of respect and religious freedom, and education and public diplomacy are vital tools in the protection of a peaceful and robust exchange of ideas and beliefs: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the House of Representatives--
(1) underscores the value of respectful speech and civil dialogue, at the same time that it affirms that the freedoms of speech and religious free exercise are integral to the health of free societies and the dignity of the human person;
(2) strongly urges the Secretary of State to make every effort to defeat the passage of future resolutions on the `defamation of religions' at the United Nations, and other resolutions or international instruments that would threaten the free and peaceful exchange of ideas, beliefs, and truth claims;
(3) calls on the United Nations to abandon all efforts to adopt or affirm the flawed concept of `defamation of religions'; and
(4) urges fellow Member States of the United Nations to focus on protecting the fundamental freedom of individuals to peacefully express their religious beliefs, and to avoid supporting resolutions that threaten the freedom of expression.
Keeping and maintaining our Representative Republic; maintaining and enforcing our Constitution and preserving the Bill of Rights is up to us. Nobody else will do it for us. We must speak out on the issue of significant threats to our rights. The pending protocol to ICERD and Defamation Resolution are threats to our right of free expression, which we must strenuously oppose with all possible vigor.
I urge my fellow citizens to click the link to congress.org and send emails to their Representative & Senators. I urge citizens of the European Union to contact their MP and MEP demanding that they oppose the protocol and resolution. Get it done!
In May of '09, the OIC issued their 2nd oic observatory report on islamophobia (june 2008 to april 2009). that fifty page pdf file may be our best guide in anticipating the content of the '09 Defamation of Religions Resolution which is expected to be submitted on or before November 3; voting may begin Nov. 12. As of the time of this writing, no draft resolution has surfaced. In anticipation of the resolution, Open Doors has begun a Free to Believe petition campaign asking UN member states to reject the resolution.
Our first warning flag is found in the
first sentence of the report's forward.
The common values of mankind must be based on a firm commitment to human rights1, as well as on the recognition of the inherent dignity of all human beings2.
- Download Islam vs Human Rights to see how well Islamic doctrine complies with international human rights covenants.
- Read Sahih Bukhari 1.8.387 to see Islam's respect for human dignity; our blood and property are not sacred to Muslims and we have no rights until we become Muslims.
Islam is a religion that implies "peace" by its very nomenclature3. It advocates respect for all religious beliefs and embraces the truth of the preceding Abrahamic faiths4. In reaffirming the preceding prophethoods, it does not, under any circumstances and as a matter of belief, permit any attack on the prophets or other religious symbols of Christianity or Judaism5. In this context it must be emphasized and understood that Islam is not a contender of Christianity or Judaism6.
- Islam is peace if and only if submission is peace. Submission is peace to the extent that, if you surrender to Islam, it won't wage war against you.
- The Jews earned Allah's anger and the Christians went astray. 9:30. And the Jews say: 'Uzair (Ezra) is the son of Allâh, and the Christians say: Messiah is the son of Allâh. That is a saying from their mouths. They imitate the saying of the disbelievers of old. Allâh's Curse be on them, how they are deluded away from the truth!
- Read The Defamation of Jesus Christ to learn how Islam denies his patrimony, crucifixion, death & resurrection and depicts him as a genocidal warlord.
- Allah's Jihad imperatives, expressed in 9:29 & 9:123 prove the fact that Islam is in a permanent state of war against Jews & Christians.
Islamophobia signifies the contemporary proliferation of discrimination against Muslims and distortion of Islam and is partly due to the ignorance and lack of understanding of Islam in the West7. It would be an unfortunate error in judgment in believing that Islam is linked to terror8; that it is intolerant of other religious beliefs9, that its values and practices are not democratic10; that it favors repression of freedom of expression and undermining human rights11.
- Phobia implies irrational fear & loathing. Is it irrational to loathe an institution which has murdered 270,000,000 people in the last 1386 years? I hate Islam, but I do not distort it; I reveal its evil nature by means of its own canon of scripture, tradition, exegeses & jurisprudence. I am attempting to correct popular ignorance and lack of understanding of Islam.
- Islam is linked to terror by Allah's declaration that he would cast terror, order to mutilate in conjunction with his casting of terror, declaration that he successfully cast terror, and Moe's declaration that he was made victorious by terror.
- Allah said that if anyone sought a religion other than Islam, it would never be accepted. Allah commanded Muslims to fight pagans until only Allah is worshiped. Is that tolerance?
- 33:36. It is not for a believer, man or woman, when Allâh and His Messenger have decreed a matter that they should have any option in their decision. And whoever disobeys Allâh and His Messenger, he has indeed strayed in a plain error. How democratic is that?
- The issue of Defamation of Religion & Freedom of Opinion and Expression resolutions results from the OIC's promotion of censorship.If waging war against us does not violate human rights, what does?
Islamophobia is a manifestation of racial discrimination12. It constitutes a two stranded form of racism anchored in both the different physical appearance of Muslims as well as the intolerance of their religion and cultural beliefs. It has now spread to the level of mainstream political activity13 and needs to be considered and addressed as one of the most serious threats to the
world’s stability.
- Criticism of Islam has been equated to racism since the preliminary document for Durban II. Accusation of racism is a favorite method of stifling debate.
- That is an obvious reference to emerging European parties which object to Islamification.
It is not extremely clear, we must read between the lines to harvest the next hint from the redundant maundery.The frequency of demonic portrayal and misrepresentation of Islam and Muslims have resulted in a situation where the identity of Muslims,
their self-esteem, human dignity and human rights has suffered tremendously. In short, Muslims need to be afforded protection against the social and psychological damage inflicted by the negative stereotyping and smear campaign which has wrongfully caused discrimination, bigotry, harassment and mental and physical abuse.
A section of the western media is a major factor in the formation of the collective misrepresentation about Islam and Muslims14. This has been spreading in the impactful areas of information15, education and the fertile grounds for the dissemination of the open hostility and the entrenchment of hatred against it.
In the present globalized world, peaceful and harmonious coexistence among diverse religions and cultures is not an option but the only means to survival16. Spectacular achievements in sphere of information and communication technology that have transformed our world into a single community afford threats as well as opportunities for peaceful coexistence17. They present mankind with tools to incite hatred and intolerance; discrimination; and distortions of religious and cultural beliefs that can spark violence causing loss of innocent lives and damage to property18. On the other hand, they can be utilized to do the reverse if we have the collective will not to allow their use to preach hatred and intolerance of other religions and cultural beliefs19.
- The media will continue to be a target, as it was in the Durban II Draft, Paragraphs 17, 66 & 119 and paragraphs 3(e) & 8 of the more recent Freedom of Opinion and Expression resolution passed by the UNHRC. We can expect them to demand self-censorship again. .
- "Information" is a code word for the internet. They want to censor blogs and web sites. The reference to education means they want to convert our schools into indoctrination centers to convert our children to Islam.
- Translation: "embrace Islam and you will be safe", a common theme in Moe's extortion letters.
- "Threats" means they want to shut down our blogs and web sites. "Opportunities" means they want to set up propaganda sites to recruit converts by concealing the truth about Islam while extolling its non-existent virtues.
- "Spark violence" is a reference to the Danish Cartoons, which did not cause violence. The violence was caused by rabble rousing sermons at Juma Prayers in Mosques.
- Clarity at last! The demand for censorship is out in the open.
The OIC proposes a frank, sincere and result oriented Dialogue20 geared to curbing Islamophobia through promoting better understanding of different cultures and religions as well as better integration of Muslims in the West21. The OIC has remained firm in its commitment towards bringing about a meaningful Dialogue among civilizations and has been working closely with its international partners including the Alliance of Civilizations towards intercultural understanding and defeating the propagators of hatred and intolerance22.
- The Dialogue got its big start with "A Common Word between Us and You", sent by the Ulema to Pope Benedict XIV. That missive is so full of al-Taqeyya & kitman that I created a new blog, Go Burn With Muhammad to expose it. Moe's idea of Dialogue was 'you surrender or we conquer you'. The modern Dialogue is more subtle, but the bottom line is the same.
- Many Muslims do not assimilate, they form enclaves and eventually demand the privilege of operating them under Shari'ah.
- The OIC is practicing projection. Islam is the propagator of hatred and intolerance. Those who doubt this fact should read the litany of hateful and violent Qur'an verses in the Calcutta Quran Petition.
Violation of the above listed covenants is an issue that can and should backfire on Islam. If they were strictly enforced, the Qur'an, hadith, tafsir & Shari'ah would be banned, proscribed by law. We need to make that happen. To the best of my knowledge, the International Qur'an Petition is the only effort along that line.Existing international laws on incitement to religious hatred including the International Convention on All forms of Racial Discrimination, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Declaration on the Elimination of all Forms of Intolerance and Discrimination Based on Religion and Belief, the Declaration on the Human Rights of Individuals who are not Nationals of the country in which they live, the Declaration on the rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities and the relevant UN Resolutions must be implemented.
It is likely that much of the resolution will be boilerplate from previous editions. The '08 Defamation of Religions Resolution is a likely model. My analysis of the Nov. 8 ' 08 draft will either put you to sleep or rouse you to sign the petition at Open Doors.
In May of '09, the OIC issued their 2nd oic observatory report on islamophobia (june 2008 to april 2009). that fifty page pdf file may be our best guide in anticipating the content of the '09 Defamation of Religions Resolution which is expected to be submitted on or before November 3; voting may begin Nov. 12. As of the time of this writing, no draft resolution has surfaced. In anticipation of the resolution, Open Doors has begun a Free to Believe petition campaign asking UN member states to reject the resolution.
Our first warning flag is found in the
first sentence of the report's forward.
The common values of mankind must be based on a firm commitment to human rights1, as well as on the recognition of the inherent dignity of all human beings2.
- Download Islam vs Human Rights to see how well Islamic doctrine complies with international human rights covenants.
- Read Sahih Bukhari 1.8.387 to see Islam's respect for human dignity; our blood and property are not sacred to Muslims and we have no rights until we become Muslims.
Islam is a religion that implies "peace" by its very nomenclature3. It advocates respect for all religious beliefs and embraces the truth of the preceding Abrahamic faiths4. In reaffirming the preceding prophethoods, it does not, under any circumstances and as a matter of belief, permit any attack on the prophets or other religious symbols of Christianity or Judaism5. In this context it must be emphasized and understood that Islam is not a contender of Christianity or Judaism6.
- Islam is peace if and only if submission is peace. Submission is peace to the extent that, if you surrender to Islam, it won't wage war against you.
- The Jews earned Allah's anger and the Christians went astray. 9:30. And the Jews say: 'Uzair (Ezra) is the son of Allâh, and the Christians say: Messiah is the son of Allâh. That is a saying from their mouths. They imitate the saying of the disbelievers of old. Allâh's Curse be on them, how they are deluded away from the truth!
- Read The Defamation of Jesus Christ to learn how Islam denies his patrimony, crucifixion, death & resurrection and depicts him as a genocidal warlord.
- Allah's Jihad imperatives, expressed in 9:29 & 9:123 prove the fact that Islam is in a permanent state of war against Jews & Christians.
Islamophobia signifies the contemporary proliferation of discrimination against Muslims and distortion of Islam and is partly due to the ignorance and lack of understanding of Islam in the West7. It would be an unfortunate error in judgment in believing that Islam is linked to terror8; that it is intolerant of other religious beliefs9, that its values and practices are not democratic10; that it favors repression of freedom of expression and undermining human rights11.
- Phobia implies irrational fear & loathing. Is it irrational to loathe an institution which has murdered 270,000,000 people in the last 1386 years? I hate Islam, but I do not distort it; I reveal its evil nature by means of its own canon of scripture, tradition, exegeses & jurisprudence. I am attempting to correct popular ignorance and lack of understanding of Islam.
- Islam is linked to terror by Allah's declaration that he would cast terror, order to mutilate in conjunction with his casting of terror, declaration that he successfully cast terror, and Moe's declaration that he was made victorious by terror.
- Allah said that if anyone sought a religion other than Islam, it would never be accepted. Allah commanded Muslims to fight pagans until only Allah is worshiped. Is that tolerance?
- 33:36. It is not for a believer, man or woman, when Allâh and His Messenger have decreed a matter that they should have any option in their decision. And whoever disobeys Allâh and His Messenger, he has indeed strayed in a plain error. How democratic is that?
- The issue of Defamation of Religion & Freedom of Opinion and Expression resolutions results from the OIC's promotion of censorship.If waging war against us does not violate human rights, what does?
Islamophobia is a manifestation of racial discrimination12. It constitutes a two stranded form of racism anchored in both the different physical appearance of Muslims as well as the intolerance of their religion and cultural beliefs. It has now spread to the level of mainstream political activity13 and needs to be considered and addressed as one of the most serious threats to the
world’s stability.
- Criticism of Islam has been equated to racism since the preliminary document for Durban II. Accusation of racism is a favorite method of stifling debate.
- That is an obvious reference to emerging European parties which object to Islamification.
It is not extremely clear, we must read between the lines to harvest the next hint from the redundant maundery.The frequency of demonic portrayal and misrepresentation of Islam and Muslims have resulted in a situation where the identity of Muslims,
their self-esteem, human dignity and human rights has suffered tremendously. In short, Muslims need to be afforded protection against the social and psychological damage inflicted by the negative stereotyping and smear campaign which has wrongfully caused discrimination, bigotry, harassment and mental and physical abuse.
A section of the western media is a major factor in the formation of the collective misrepresentation about Islam and Muslims14. This has been spreading in the impactful areas of information15, education and the fertile grounds for the dissemination of the open hostility and the entrenchment of hatred against it.
In the present globalized world, peaceful and harmonious coexistence among diverse religions and cultures is not an option but the only means to survival16. Spectacular achievements in sphere of information and communication technology that have transformed our world into a single community afford threats as well as opportunities for peaceful coexistence17. They present mankind with tools to incite hatred and intolerance; discrimination; and distortions of religious and cultural beliefs that can spark violence causing loss of innocent lives and damage to property18. On the other hand, they can be utilized to do the reverse if we have the collective will not to allow their use to preach hatred and intolerance of other religions and cultural beliefs19.
- The media will continue to be a target, as it was in the Durban II Draft, Paragraphs 17, 66 & 119 and paragraphs 3(e) & 8 of the more recent Freedom of Opinion and Expression resolution passed by the UNHRC. We can expect them to demand self-censorship again. .
- "Information" is a code word for the internet. They want to censor blogs and web sites. The reference to education means they want to convert our schools into indoctrination centers to convert our children to Islam.
- Translation: "embrace Islam and you will be safe", a common theme in Moe's extortion letters.
- "Threats" means they want to shut down our blogs and web sites. "Opportunities" means they want to set up propaganda sites to recruit converts by concealing the truth about Islam while extolling its non-existent virtues.
- "Spark violence" is a reference to the Danish Cartoons, which did not cause violence. The violence was caused by rabble rousing sermons at Juma Prayers in Mosques.
- Clarity at last! The demand for censorship is out in the open.
The OIC proposes a frank, sincere and result oriented Dialogue20 geared to curbing Islamophobia through promoting better understanding of different cultures and religions as well as better integration of Muslims in the West21. The OIC has remained firm in its commitment towards bringing about a meaningful Dialogue among civilizations and has been working closely with its international partners including the Alliance of Civilizations towards intercultural understanding and defeating the propagators of hatred and intolerance22.
- The Dialogue got its big start with "A Common Word between Us and You", sent by the Ulema to Pope Benedict XIV. That missive is so full of al-Taqeyya & kitman that I created a new blog, Go Burn With Muhammad to expose it. Moe's idea of Dialogue was 'you surrender or we conquer you'. The modern Dialogue is more subtle, but the bottom line is the same.
- Many Muslims do not assimilate, they form enclaves and eventually demand the privilege of operating them under Shari'ah.
- The OIC is practicing projection. Islam is the propagator of hatred and intolerance. Those who doubt this fact should read the litany of hateful and violent Qur'an verses in the Calcutta Quran Petition.
Violation of the above listed covenants is an issue that can and should backfire on Islam. If they were strictly enforced, the Qur'an, hadith, tafsir & Shari'ah would be banned, proscribed by law. We need to make that happen. To the best of my knowledge, the International Qur'an Petition is the only effort along that line.Existing international laws on incitement to religious hatred including the International Convention on All forms of Racial Discrimination, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Declaration on the Elimination of all Forms of Intolerance and Discrimination Based on Religion and Belief, the Declaration on the Human Rights of Individuals who are not Nationals of the country in which they live, the Declaration on the rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities and the relevant UN Resolutions must be implemented.
It is likely that much of the resolution will be boilerplate from previous editions. The '08 Defamation of Religions Resolution is a likely model. My analysis of the Nov. 8 ' 08 draft will either put you to sleep or rouse you to sign the petition at Open Doors.
At their October 2, 2009 meeting, the miserably misnamed United Nations
Human Rights Council under agenda item 3:
passed, without a vote, a draft resolution submitted jointly by Egypt and the United States, entitled: Freedom of opinion and expression.PROMOTION AND PROTECTION OF ALL HUMAN RIGHTS, CIVIL,
POLITICAL, ECONOMIC, SOCIAL AND CULTURAL RIGHTS,
INCLUDING THE RIGHT TO DEVELOPMENT
If any resolution has ever been given a more Orwellian title, I am unaware of it. While superficially appearing to recognize and protect freedom of expression, in reality it threatens that freedom. Eye on the UN has made the resolution available in the form of an eight page pdf file: A/HRC/12/L.l4/Rev.
Since the file was made from a scanned
image, FreeOCR.net was used to make text available for quoting, which
compelled the complete reconstruction of the document's format. I have
retained the original spelling. The resolution makes reference to two
external documents:
- the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,
- the report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression (A/I-IRC/11/4).
News agencies, human rights groups and decent people are concerned about assaults against and murder of journalists; the repressive regimes who perpetrate those evil acts are not, theirs are crocodile tears. Egypt has a record of jailing and torturing bloggers.Deeply concerned that violations of the right to freedom of opinion and expression continue to occur, including increased attacks directed against, and killings of, journalists and media workers, and stressing the need to ensure greater protection for all media professionals and for journalistic sources,
That appears to be a reference to the Patriot Act. I am not aware of any offenses against freedom of expression being carried out under its provisions. Muslims love to unjustly accuse us of using national security as a cover for imaginary repression of Muslims.
Stressing the need to ensure that the invocation of national security, including counter-terrorism, is not used unjustifiably or arbitrarily to restrict the right to freedom of opinion and expression,
Stressing importance of freedom? No, stretching the truth past the shear point. The resolution is designed to impair our freedom to receive and impart information.Stressing also the importance of the full respect for the freedom to seek, receive and impart information, including the fundamental importance of access to information, democratic participation, accountability and combating corruption,
That is boilerplate. Observe the following text lifted from The right to freedom of opinion and expression Human Rights Resolution 2005/38.Recognizing the importance of all forms of the media, including the printed media, radio, television and the Internet, in the exercise, promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression,
In point #9, they skim lightly over the truth, almost exposing it to view.Recognizing the importance of all forms of the media, including the print media, radio, television and the Internet, in the exercise, promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression,
Recognizes the positive contribution that the exercise of the right to freedom of expression, particularly by the media, including through information and communication technologies such as the Internet, and full respect for the freedom to seek, receive and impart information can make to the fight against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance and to preventing human rights abuses, but expresses regret at the promotion by certain media of false images and negative stereotypes of vulnerable individuals or groups of individuals, and at the use of information and communication technologies such as the Internet for purposes contrary to respect for human rights, in particular the perpetration of violence against and exploitation and abuse of women and children, and disseminating racist and xenophobic discourse or content;
Racism
The media can make a positive contribution to the fight against racism, ... related intolerance... Those are code words for 'Islamophobia'.The following quote is from Preliminary document of the African Regional Conference Preparatory to the Durban Review Conference
'Islamophobia' is code for opposition to Islamic supremacism, triumphalism, conquest, genocide & terrorism. Phobia implies irrational fear or loathing. but there is nothing irrational about loathing a war cult that has murdered 270 million people in the last 1386 years.Emphasizes the urgent need to address the scourges of anti-Semitism, Christianophobia, and Islamophobia as contemporary forms of racism as well as racial and violent movements based on racism and discriminatory ideas directed at African, Arab, Christian, Jewish, Muslim and other communities;
Negative Stereotypes
Combating
defamation of religions 
revised
draft resolution
7. Expresses deep concern in this respect that Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism;
-
O11.5 [Reliance of the Traveller]
Such non-Muslim subjects are obliged to comply with Islamic rules that pertain to the safety and indemnity of life, reputation, and property. In addition, they:
-1- are penalized for committing adultery or theft, thought not for drunkenness;
-2- are distinguished from Muslims in dress, wearing a wide cloth belt (zunnar);
-3- are not greeted with "as-Salamu 'alaykum";
-4- must keep to the side of the street;
-5- may not build higher than or as high as the Muslims' buildings, though if they acquire a tall house, it is not razed;
-6- are forbidden to openly display wine or pork, (A: to ring church bells or display crosses,) recite the Torah or Evangel aloud, or make public display of their funerals and feastdays;
-7- and are forbidden to build new churches.
(For further information about Islam's human rights violations, download Islam vs Human Rights.)
13. Also emphasixes that no religion should be equated with terrorism, as this may have adverse consequences on the enjoyment of the right to freedom of religion or belief of all members of the religious communities concerned,
- We shall cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve 3:151
- I will cast terror into the hearts of those who have disbelieved, so strike them over the necks, and smite over all their fingers and toes 8:12
- So if you gain the mastery over them in war, punish them severely in order to disperse those who are behind them, so that they may learn a lesson. 8:57
- Make ready then against them what force ye can, and strong squadrons whereby ye may strike terror into the enemy of God and your enemy, 8:60
- I have been made victorious with terror Sahih Bukhari 4.52.220
Telling the truth about Islam, as revealed by its own canon of scripture, tradition, exegeses & jurisprudence is not slander. It does not violate anyone's rights, and affects only the reputation of Islam. Public order is not disturbed by revealing Islam's pecadillos, it is disturbed by the Muslim's reaction to revelation of the truth: riots incited by rabble rousing Imams at Juma Prayer meetings.Recalling that the exercise of the right to freedom of expression carries with it special duties and responsibilities, in accordance with article 19 (3) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,
Article 19
1. Everyone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference.
2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.
3. The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraph 2 of this article carries with it special duties and responsibilities. It may therefore be subject to certain restrictions, but these shall only be such as are provided by law and are necessary:
(a) For respect of the rights or reputations of others;
(b) For the protection of national security or of public order (ordre public), or of public health or morals.
Recalling also that States should encourage free, responsible and mutually respectful dialogue,
- Reaffirms the rights contained in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, in particular the right of everyone to hold opinions without interference, as well as the right to freedom of expression, including the freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art or through any other media of their choice, and the intrinsically linked rights to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, peaceful assembly and association and the right to take part in the conduct of public affairs;
- Takes note of the report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression (A/HRC/l 1/4), as well as his presentation and the interactive dialogue thereon at its eleventh session;
Following a meeting on 9 December 2008, as part of the Global Forum on World Media
Development (held 7-10 December 2008 in Athens), the Special Rapporteur, along with the
Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) Representative on Freedom of the
Media, Miklos Haraszti, the Organization of American States (OAS) Special Rapporteur on
Freedom of Expression, Catalina Botero, and the African Commission on Human and Peoples’
Rights Special Rapporteur on Freedom of Expression and Access to Information, Faith Pansy
Tlakula, issued a joint declaration on defamation of religions, and anti-terrorism and
anti-extremism legislation. The declaration noted that the concept of “defamation of religions”
did not accord with international standards regarding defamation and that restrictions on freedom
of expression should be limited in scope to the protection of overriding individual rights and
social interests. Restrictions should never be used to protect particular institutions or abstract
notions, concepts or beliefs, including religious ones. The declaration further noted that
restrictions on freedom of expression to prevent intolerance should be limited in scope to
advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination,
hostility or violence and it encouraged the General Assembly and the Human Rights Council to
desist from further adoption of statements supporting the idea of defamation of religions.
[Pg. 8, #24]The Special Rapporteur notes that freedom of expression is the manifestation of cultures,
cultural diversity, religion and ideologies. Therefore, the right to freedom of expression should
be approached with a positive view to defending it. Existing international instruments establish a
specific limit on freedom of expression. In particular, the International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights provides that “any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes
incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law”. The main
challenge thus lies in identifying at which point these thresholds are reached. A broad
interpretation of these limitations, which has recently been suggested in international forums, is
not in line with existing international instruments and would ultimately jeopardize the full
enjoyment of human rights. Limitations to the right to freedom of opinion and expression have
more often than not been used by States as a means to restrict criticism and silence dissent.
[Pg. 11, #39]Limitations on freedom of expression should be clearly defined and provided by law.
Limitations should not threaten the exercise of the right itself. In addition, they ought to be
necessary and proportionate to the objective they propound to achieve, and should include the
least intrusive means insofar as freedom of expression is concerned, to prevent a chilling effect.
The adjudication of such limitations should be made by an independent judiciary. [Pg. 11, #40]
- Also expresses its concern that incidents of racial and religious intolerance, discrimination and related violence, as well as of negative racial and religious stereotyping continue to rise around the world, and condemns, in this context, any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence, and urges States to take effective measures, consistent with their obligations under international human rights law, to address and combat such incidents;
Advocacy of Religious Hatred
Sounds terrible, does it not? But the level of abstraction is excessive; lets bring it down to the concrete by displaying its meaning in the real world.The pending trial of Geert Wilders on charges of hate speech is a prime example of the violation of freedom of expression intended by the sponsors of this resolution.Reuters quotes U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon about Fitna:
“There is no justification for hate speech or incitement to violence,” Ban said in a statement. “The right of free expression is not at stake here.”
The man chiefly responsible for enforcing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights asserts that there is no right to tell the truth about Islam. [Emphasis added for clarity.] Fitna is not hate speech nor is it incitement; it accurately depicts Islamic hate speech and incitement.
#5 "Calls upon states",. among other
things to:
That gem of bureaucracy is in line with Mark LLoyd's The Center for American Progress report, "The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio" which discusses the "Imbalance" in talk radio programming. Their attitude holds talk radio to be unfairly dominated by Conservative talk show hosts; they seed ways and means of increasing the number and proportion of Socialist talk show hosts and broadcast hours.h. To promote a pluralistic approach to information and multiple points of view by encouraging a diversity of ownership of media and of sources of information, including mass media, through, inter alia, transparent licensing systems and effective regulations on undue concentration of ownership of the media in the private sector;
When you read that report, you will learn that shortening the renewal period, imposing local advisory boards and transferring ownership to minorities are intended to reduce the airing of criticism of President Obama's Socialist agenda.Simply reinstating the Fairness Doctrine will do little to address the gap between conservative and progressive talk unless the underlying elements of the public trustee doctrine are enforced, in particular, the requirements of local accountability and the reasonable airing of important matters.
License renewal previously required local engagement with the community—the solicitation of local feedback on programming and accountable public reporting of this input so that the FCC could determine if the broadcaster was upholding its public interest responsibilities. Now licenses are renewed by “postcard,” a stamp in the corner of a scrap of paper now substitutes for all of the local interaction, very little of which is still required by law. Without these policies fostering local responsiveness, the move toward lowest common denominator syndicated programming was facilitated.
Media Self Censorship
- Recognizes the moral and social responsibilities of the media and the importance that the media's own elaboration of voluntary codes of professional ethical conduct can play in combating racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance;
The code words for 'Islamophobia' make another appearance. It is
obvious that #8 is a demand for self censorship by the media.
Orwellian Doublespeak
Freedom of expression has a positive role in combating 'Islamophobia'. Yeah, right, we are free to praise Islam, but not to accurately describe and condemn it.
- Reaffirms the positive role that the exercise of the right to freedom of opinion and expression and the full respect for the freedom to seek, receive and impart information can play in strengthening democracy, combating racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, in line with relevant provisions of international human rights law
Open public debate of ideas is impossible when some ideas are proscribed by law or regulations. The authors of this resolution seek to outlaw all criticism of Islam, making it illegal to reveal the fact that Islam is a war cult, not a "religion of peace". They would outlaw revealing the foundational aspects of Jihad, genocide & terrorism. They would not allow us to discuss Islamic laws which oppress and discriminate against women and religious minorities. They would silence us when we write about the insidious encroachments of Shari'ah, lawfare & demographic conquest.
- Recognizes that the open public debate of ideas, as well as interfaith and intercultural dialogue at the local, national, and international levels, can be among the best protections against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, and can play a positive role in strengthening democracy and combating national, racial or religious hatred;
While seeking to infringe on free
expression, they falsely assert that they are protecting it. President
Bush made a show of being on the outside, condemning the UNHRC's
attacks against free speech. President Obama has joined our attackers
and is actively participating in an attempt to censor us.
Take Action!
The time for taking action has come. I urge my readers to visit the web site of a new movement to Impeach President Obama and join the movement. President Obama is obviously part of the problem, not part of the solution. This on line petition for Impeachment has 3,355 signatures add your signature to the list and urge everyone you can influence to endorse the petition.
The United Nations has been taken over by the enemy and is being used against us. There is no real possibility of reforming it. Now is the time to get out of that perverted institution. I urge you to sign, publicize and promote the Quit the U.N petition.
The evil doctrines of Islam including
Jihad, genocide, terrorism and supremacism are static violations of
ICCPR, ICERD & CPPCG.
The International Qur'an Petition
contains sufficient evidence to
substantiate that charge. It prays to the World Court for injunctive
relief. Please endorse it, send it to your Congressman &
Senators and to everyone in your email address book. The
International Qur'an Petition is our best way to turn their own tactics
against them. If not now when? If not us, Who? If we do not
unite and apply great political pressure, we will loose our liberty
forever. We must not let that happen!
Related Blog Posts
The following blog posts contain information about related resolutions
and documents.
A press release from Eye
on the UN brought a new UN disinformation campaign to light: Anti-racism conference outcome document –
what it actually says. [All font attributes in the
quotations were added by the author for emphasis and clarity. All links
within the quotations, with the exception of the quote from Wikipedia,
were added by the author.]
Concerning “defamation of religion”, there were concerns that the outcome document would introduce such a concept and threaten freedom of expression. The document does no such thing.
It unequivocally reaffirms the positive role of freedom of expression in the fight against racism, while also deploring derogatory stereotyping and stigmatization of people based on their religion or belief, as manifested in Islamophobia, anti-Semitism, Christianophobia and anti-Arabism.
The outcome document also launches a process to examine how the prohibition of incitement to hatred, a well-established concept as reflected in Article 20 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, has been implemented in various parts of the world.
Prohibition of incitement to hatred & violence would require the banning of Islam's canon of scripture, tradition & Jurisprudence.Since the UN and its appendant bodies are dominated by the OIC and its dhimmis & allies, such a ban will never happen.
The Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) is to organize a series of expert workshops on the legislative patterns, judicial practices and national policies in the different regions of the world on the subject in order to assess the level of implementation of the prohibition of incitement.
It is true that “defamation of religion” does not occur in the text of the outcome document. But the demon is in the details.
This statement: "advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement", is not so narrowly construed as we are expected to assume. This fatal fact is established by the spew from the Secretary General in his irresponsible condemnation of Fitna, the short subject by Dutch M.P., Geert Wilders. Fitna juxtaposes verses of the Qur'an with their real world application from Kutbah to resulting riots. The video quotes Islam's canon of scripture along with excerpts from video recordings of Kutbah and images of resulting riots. The only expressions of hatred or incitement contained therein are those of Islam's demon and his acolytes. Read what Ban Ki-Moon said about it.12. Deplores the global rise and number of incidents of racial or religious intolerance and violence, including Islamophobia, anti-Semitism, Christianophobia and anti-Arabism manifested in particular by the derogatory stereotyping and stigmatization of persons based on their religion or belief; and in this regard urges all the UN Member States to implement paragraph 150 of the DDPA;
150. Calls upon States, in opposing all forms of racism, to recognize the need to
counter anti-Semitism, anti-Arabism and Islamophobia world-wide, and urges all States to take
effective measures to prevent the emergence of movements based on racism and discriminatory
ideas concerning these communities;
13. Reaffirms that any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law; reaffirms further that all dissemination of ideas based on racial superiority or hatred, incitement to racial discrimination as well as all acts of violence or incitement to such acts shall be declared offence punishable by law, in accordance with the international obligations of States and that these prohibitions are consistent with freedom of opinion and expression;
According to the Secretary General, accurate quotation of the Qur'an is hate speech; accurately depicting Muslim clerics screaming for blood is incitement to violence, not protected by freedom of expression.Reuters quotes U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon about Fitna:
“There is no justification for hate speech or incitement to violence,” Ban said in a statement. “The right of free expression is not at stake here.”
The draft of October 9 '08 contained three insertions of “defamation of religion”. While the phrase was deleted, the intention of the authors remains unchanged.
The outcome document contains 79 references to "racism". We must not ignore the implied meaning of that word. The following quote is from the Preliminary document of the African Regional Conference Preparatory to the Durban Review Conference [Emphasis added.]4. Emphasizes the urgent need to address the scourges of anti-Semitism, Christianophobia, and Islamophobia as contemporary forms of racism as well as racial and violent movements based on racism and discriminatory ideas directed at African, Arab, Christian, Jewish, Muslim and other communities;
The emphasized phrase conflates objections to Islam's supremacism, triumphalism, aggression, genocide & terrorism with racism.
30. Welcomes the important role played by the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, and all other relevant special procedures and mechanisms in the fight against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance and calls on States to cooperate fully with these mechanisms;
A/HRC/7/19, the report submitted by Mr. Doudou Diène, Special Rapporteur 02/20/08 contains 7 references to "Islamophobia"
Efforts to combat racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance are encountering a number of serious major challenges manifested by the following worrying trends, details of which are given in this report: erosion of the political will to combat racism and xenophobia, as shown by the non-implementation of the Durban Programme of Action; the resurgence of racist and xenophobic violence; the growing political trivialization of racism and xenophobia, demonstrated by the spread of racist and xenophobic political platforms and by their implementation through government alliances with democratic parties; the ideological, scientific and intellectual legitimization of racist and xenophobic discourse and rhetoric, which favours an ethnic or racial interpretation of social, economic and political problems and immigration; the general increase in manifestations of racial and religious hatred, and also religious intolerance, reflected in particular in manifestations of anti-Semitism and Christianophobia and, more especially, Islamophobia; and the increasing importance in identity constructs of a rejection of
diversity and resistance to the process of multiculturalization of societies. The Special Rapporteur devotes a chapter to discrimination based on caste, which he considers to be implicit in his mandate.To reverse these worrying trends, the Special Rapporteur is continuing to promote, in all his activities, the development of a dual strategy: political and legal, on the one hand, aiming to arouse and strengthen the political will of Governments to combat racism and xenophobia and enabling States to acquire the legal and administrative instruments for this purpose, in line with the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action; and cultural, intellectual and ethical, on the other hand, targeting the root causes of those trends, in particular the value systems which legitimize them, the identity constructs - including the writing and teaching of history - which support them, and the rejection of diversity and multiculturalism which sustains them.
6. The growth of incitement to racial and religious hatred and the resurgence of manifestations of anti-Semitism, Christianophobia and, more particularly, Islamophobia are other particularly worrying trends. They can be attributed to the following: conflation of race, culture and religion; intellectual and ideological questioning of religion; the imbalance between the defence of secularism and respect for freedom of religion; and the supervisory and security-based approach to the practice and teaching of Islam. A particularly worrying element resulting from these developments is the selective and political interpretation of human rights and fundamental freedoms, manifested inter alia by the ideological pre-eminence of freedom of expression over the other freedoms, restrictions and limitations embodied in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
54. Throughout his term of office, the Special Rapporteur has highlighted one of the central causes of the resurgence of racism and its increasing complexity: the conflation of racial, cultural and religious factors. He has consequently paid special attention to the increase in anti-Semitism, Islamophobia and Christianophobia, and hostility to other spiritual and religious traditions. His most recent report on combating defamation of religions,11 which was submitted to the Human Rights Council at its sixth session, must be seen in the context of his earlier reports to the Commission on Human Rights on the situation of Muslim and Arab peoples in various parts of the world, in which he stressed the violence and attacks targeted on their places of worship,
cultural centres, businesses and property following the events of 11 September 2001.12 His report entitled “Defamation of religions and global efforts to combat racism: anti-Semitism, Christianophobia and Islamophobia”13 confirms this worrying trend.
One quote stands out like a sore toe; lets face it directly.
A particularly worrying element resulting from these developments is the selective and political interpretation of human rights and fundamental freedoms, manifested inter alia by the ideological pre-eminence of freedom of expression over the other freedoms, restrictions and limitations embodied in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
Doudou Diène let the snake out of the bag. The authors welcome his important role. The sentence quoted above crystallizes the central concept of the document. Contrary to the dishonest statement of High Commissioner Navi Pillay the outcome document places heavy emphasis on restricting freedom of expression.
28. Reaffirms its call upon States to implement all commitments resulting from international and regional conferences in which they participated, and to formulate national policies and action plans to prevent, combat, and eradicate racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance;
"Racism and related intolerance" means "Islamophobia" which is a code word for any criticism of Islam. The resolution demands legislation to outlaw criticism of Islam.
39. Urges States parties to the Convention to withdraw reservations contrary to the object and purpose of the Convention and to consider withdrawing other reservations; [Link added.]
Wikipedia provides the arcane detail required to comprehend paragraph 39.
The U.S. has attached a reservation to its 1994 ratification of the treaty noting that specifically the treaty's restrictions on freedom of speech and freedom of assembly were incompatible with the guarantees of such freedoms incorporated into the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.[20][21]
54. Reaffirms the positive role that the exercise of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, as well as the full respect for the freedom to seek, receive and impart information can play in combating racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, in line with relevant provisions of international human rights law, instruments, norms and standards;
58. Stresses that the right to freedom of opinion and expression constitutes one of the essential foundations of a democratic, pluralistic society and stresses further the role these rights can play in the fight against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance worldwide;
Malicious malarkey!!! Malignant maundery!!! Refer to the disgusting execration of Ban Ki-Moon referenced above. The rightful role of freedom of expression in the fight against intolerance is the full and fully documented exposure of Islam's intrinsic genocidal aggression. Geert Wilders exposed it with Fitna; I documented it with http://snooper.wordpress.com/2008/03/27/fitna-supporting-documentation/ .
56. Calls on States to take effective, tangible and comprehensive measures to prevent, combat and eradicate all forms and manifestations of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance;
That is another thinly veiled demand for legislation to criminalize criticism of Islam.
68. Expresses its concern over the rise in recent years of acts of incitement to hatred, which have targeted and severely affected racial and religious communities and persons belonging to racial and religious minorities, whether involving the use of print, audio-visual or electronic media or any other means, and emanating from a variety of sources;
An obvious reference to Fitna and the Danish cartoons.
69. Resolves to, as stipulated in art. 20 of the ICCPR, fully and effectively prohibit any advocacy of national, racial, or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence and implement it through all necessary legislative, policy and judicial measures; [Link added.]
1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.
2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.
Refer once again to Ban Ki-moon's despicable defamation of Fitna previously quoted .
99. Calls upon States, in accordance with their human rights obligations, to declare illegal and to prohibit all organizations based on ideas or theories of superiority of one race or group of persons of one colour or ethnic origin, or which attempt to justify or promote national, racial and religious hatred and discrimination in any form, and to adopt immediate and positive measures designed to eradicate all incitement to, or acts of, such discrimination;
That is a thinly veiled attack upon the Belgian & Dutch Freedom parties because they oppose the Islamization of Europe.
121. Commends media organizations that have elaborated voluntary ethical codes of conduct aimed at, inter alia, meeting the goals defined in paragraph 144 of the Durban Programme of Action, and encourages consultations among media professionals through relevant associations and organizations at the national, regional and international levels, with the assistance of OHCHR, with a view to exchanging views on this subject and sharing best practices, taking into account the independence of the media and international human rights standards and norms;
144. Urges States and encourages the private sector to promote the development by the
media, including the print and electronic media, including the Internet and advertising, taking
into account their independence, through their relevant associations and organizations at the
national, regional and international levels, of a voluntary ethical code of conduct and
self-regulatory measures, and of policies and practices aimed at:
(a) Combating racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance;
(b) Promoting the fair, balanced and equitable representation of the diversity of their
societies, as well as ensuring that this diversity is reflected among their staff;
(c) Combating the proliferation of ideas of racial superiority, justification of racial
hatred and discrimination in any form;
(d) Promoting respect, tolerance and understanding among all individuals, peoples,
nations and civilizations, for example through assistance in public awareness-raising campaigns;
(e) Avoiding stereotyping in all its forms, and particularly the promotion of false
images of migrants, including migrant workers, and refugees, in order to prevent the spread of
xenophobic sentiments among the public and to encourage the objective and balanced portrayal
of people, events and history;
Paragraph 144 is an obvious demand for self-censorship; note the phrases to which I added emphasis.
134. Takes note of the proposal of the OHCHR, in cooperation with regional stakeholders in all parts of the world, to organize in light of the OHCHR Expert Seminar on the links between art. 19 and 20 of the ICCPR a series of expert workshops to attain a better understanding of the legislative patterns, judicial practices and national policies in the different regions of the world with regard to the concept of incitement to hatred, in order to assess the level of implementation of the prohibition of incitement, as stipulated in article 20 of the ICCPR, without prejudice to the mandate of the Ad Hoc Committee on the Complementary Standards;
What is the big deal about the “Ad Hoc Committee on the Complementary Standards”? Its report, of course. The committee generated a proposed protocol to be added to ICERD. The protocol would criminalize “defamation of religions”, as demanded by the OIC. I am unable at present to find the text of the proposal. These references hint at it. A/HRC/10/L.8, Press Release , Joint NGO Statement.
Remember that Fitna constitutes incitement, according to the Secretary General! The outcome document repeatedly demands criminalization of criticism of Islam. Navi Pillay's assertion that the outcome document does not threaten freedom of expression is proved to be a malicious, malignant lie, obviously intended to disarm us as we seek to protect and preserve our constitutional rights. If we can not name and accurately describe the doctrines & practices of our enemy then, in the words of President Washington, ..."then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter".
The United Nations is a contributor to the problem, not part of the solution. Its leaders are liars, men and women with lofty titles and low morals. To Hell with it and with them! Instead of seeking a seat on the Orwellian UNHRC, the U.S.A. should withdraw from the UN and expel it and its appendant bodies from our territory.
This is what the IHEU is warning about in
their press release, as the second of three listed threats to
liberty.
Call upon all governments to resist the efforts of the “Ad Hoc Committee on Complementary Standards” to alter the ICERD;.
This draft complementary international standards in the fight against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance has been prepared for the implementation of paragraph 199 of the Program of Action(A/CONF.189/12).
Article 4 of the proposed protocol to ICERD is titled: Prohibition of Incitement to Racial Hatred.199. Recommends that the Commission on Human Rights prepare complementary
international standards to strengthen and update international instruments against racism, racial
discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance in all their aspects;
This article contains several notable provisions.
- States Parties condemn all propaganda, practice or organization to justify or encourage any form of hatred or discrimination against persons belonging to groups such as religious groups, refugees, asylum seekers, people displaced, stateless persons, migrants and migrant workers, descent-based communities such as people of African descent, indigenous peoples, minorities and people under foreign occupation.
- States Parties undertake to adopt immediate and positive measures designed to eradicate all incitement to such hatred or discrimination, including:
- to declare an offense punishable by law all dissemination of ideas to such discrimination or hatred, as well as all acts of violence or incitement to such acts directed against persons belonging to particular groups;
- to declare illegal and prohibit organizations and propaganda activities organized and any other type of propaganda which incites hatred or discrimination or who encourages, and to declare punishable by law the involvement in such organizations or activities;
- not permit public authorities, national or local, to incite hatred or discrimination;
- not to allow political parties to incite hatred or discrimination.
- to strengthen their laws or take the legal provisions necessary to prohibit and punish racist and xenophobic platforms and discourage by a democratic debate vigilant the integration of political parties promoting these platforms in Government to legitimise their implementation alliances.
This protocol to ICERD would become International law, binding on
signatories, and a provision in Article 17 prohibits
reservations. We need a definition of terms:
- justify or encourage any form of hatred or discrimination
- incites hatred
- racist and xenophobic
According to that, anyone who says or writes anything negative about Islam incites racial hatred. Is that clear yet? Examine what U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said about Geert Wilders' Fitna:.The fundamental characteristic of all the events to certain religions and descriditer to insult people or groups who share the religion, commonly called "defamation of religions" and all the fear and religious discrimination is inciting racial hatred For religious and address the issue of defamation of religions in a universal, it is essential to bring this discussion to the international instruments on human rights.
Geert Wilders quoted the Qur'an and displayed images of rabble rousing Imams and their followers, along with some of the results of their preaching. Ban Ki-moon says that constitutes hate speech and incitement to violence."There is no justification for hate speech or incitement to violence," Ban said in a statement. "The right of free expression is not at stake here."[Reuters]
Masood Khan quoted Ban Ki-Moon's
representative to the Alliance of Civilizations as declaring Fitna to
be " a deliberate
incitement to discrimination, violence and hatred on grounds
of religion, aimed at provoking and promoting social unrest". [Masood Khan's
statement of 04/01/08]
If we accurately describe Islam's doctrines &
practices, quoting its canon of scripture, tradition &
jurisprudence, we are automatically convicted of hate speech; inciting
violence. This is part of an Orwellian campaign to dis-arm us, to
render us incapable of warning against Islamic aggression.
This protocol would outlaw two American and two European political parties for their anti-Islam platforms. Muhammad, claimed to be the best and greatest of men, worthy of emulation as a role model was a murderer, pedophile & terrorist. For genuine hate speech and incitement to violence, read the Qur'an, don't stop there, read the next six verses. Is cursing Jews & Christians hateful enough for you? How about genocide? He killed all the men of a Jewish village after they surrendered, then he examined the boys for pubic hair and slaughtered those who had it.
Islam seeks to criminalize its critics because it has no defense against the facts contained in its own canon of scripture, tradition & jurisprudence. Moe had good reason for forbidding his followers to carry the Qur'an into Dar al-Harb: "That is out of fear that the enemy will get hold of it."
Don't just sit there waiting for the
noose to be placed on your neck. Send an email to your
Senators, and to President Obama. Tell them that the proposed protocol
is unacceptable. Tell them that you consider support for it to be
tantamount to treason. You can send your email through the
Federal Officers link at http://www.congress.org/
. Include a link to this blog post in your email so that your Senators
can become informed.
Dear Readers,
Reproducing blog posts written by others is not my usual habit, I usually do so only when the authors explicitly request it. I make an exception in this extremely important case because of the urgency of the issue and the short time line required for an effective response.
If you are an officer or member of any NGO which speaks out on issues of Liberty, I urge you to give careful and rapid attention to the following appeal from the International Humanist and Ethical Union. Please bring this matter to the immediate attention of the leaders of your organization and exhort them to endorse the appeal immediately.
The statement reproduced below brings two new attacks upon liberty to my attention. I intend to make contact with the author in hopes of receiving links to the documents involved so that I can make them the subject of future blog posts.
As a member of the United American Committee, Act! for America and Center for Vigilant Freedom, I exhort the leaders of those organization to add their official endorsement.
An urgent appeal to Humanist organizations: support freedom of expression, oppose "defamation of religions"
Submitted by admin on 22 March,
2009 - 14:19.
In conjunction with Freedom House, UN Watch and the Becket
Fund for Religious Liberty, IHEU
is seeking Humanist
orgnizations' support for the statement below, urging all states to
reject UN resolutions "combating defamation of religion" - a concept
which has no validity in international law. The statement is self
explanatory. If your organization is in agreement with the statement,
please endorse it on behalf of your organization by emailing me
personally at . Please indicate in your reply the full name of
your organization (which does not need to
be accredited to the UN).
We plan to circulate the statement early next week to delegations at the Human Rights Council, prior to the Council vote on the "defamation of religion" resolution. The deadline for replies is 4pm CET (10am EST) on Tuesday 24 March.
Do not delay! Please add your organization's voice to this important statement in defence of human rights.
With kind regards
Roy
W Brown
IHEU Main Representative, UN Geneva
Immediate Past President of IHEU
Joint NGO Statement on Danger of U.N. “Defamation of Religions” Campaign
We, the undersigned non-governmental organizations,
Deeply concerned by the pervasive and mounting campaign by the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC) to produce U.N. resolutions, declarations, and world conferences that propagate the concept of “defamation of religions,” a concept having no basis in domestic or international law, and which would alter the very meaning of human rights, which protect individuals from harm, but not beliefs from critical inquiry;
Deeply concerned by the attempt to misuse the U.N. to legitimize anti-blasphemy laws, thereby restricting freedom of religion, freedom of expression, and freedom of the press;
Deeply concerned that “defamation of religions” resolutions may be used in certain countries to silence and intimidate human rights activists, religious dissenters, and other independent voices;
Alarmed by the resolution on “defamation of religions” recently tabled at the current 10th session of the UN Human Rights Council;
Alarmed by the draft resolution on freedom of expression circulated by Egypt, whose amendments seek to restrict, not promote, protections for free speech;
Alarmed by the recently-announced initiative of the U.N. “Ad Hoc Committee on Complementary Standards” to amend the International Convention for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) by adding a protocol on “defamation of religions”;
Alarmed by provisions in the latest draft outcome document of the Durban Review Conference that, through coded language and veiled references, endorse and encourage these subversive and anti-democratic initiatives;
- Call upon
all governments to oppose the
“defamation of religions” resolution currently tabled at the UN Human
Rights Council, and the objectionable provisions of the freedom of
expression resolution;
- Call upon
all governments to resist the efforts of the “Ad Hoc Committee on
Complementary Standards” to alter the ICERD;
- Call upon all governments not to accept or legitimize a Durban Review Conference outcome that directly or indirectly supports the “defamation of religions” campaign at the expense of basic freedoms and individual human rights.
Initial Signatories:
- UN Watch
- International Humanist and Ethical Union
- Freedom House
- The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty
This post begins a critical examination of the assertions expressed in
and implied by these statements from the current and proposed
resolutions combating defamation of religions.
Is Islam wrongly associated with terrorism? The assertion implies that Islam does not sanction terrorism. An examination of Islam's canon of scripture & tradition discloses the truth.Also expresses deep concern at attempts to identify Islam with terrorism, violence and human rights violations and emphasizes that equating any religion with terrorism should be rejected and combated by all at all levels;
Expresses deep concern in this respect that Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism...
Terror is mentioned in the Qur'an, in
both eternal and temporal contexts; only the latter are relevant to
this discussion. [Emphasis added.]
3:151. We shall cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve, because they joined others in worship with Allah, for which He had sent no authority; their abode will be the Fire and how evil is the abode of the Zalimun (polytheists and wrongdoers).
7:4. How many a township have We destroyed! As a raid by night, or while they slept at noon, Our terror came unto them....Allah next conveys the good news that He will put fear of the Muslims, and feelings of subordination to the Muslims in the hearts of their disbelieving enemies, because of their Kufr and Shirk. ... The Prohibition of Obeying the Disbelievers; the Cause of Defeat at Uhud
8:12. (Remember) when your Lord inspired the angels, "Verily, I am with you, so keep firm those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who have disbelieved, so strike them over the necks, and smite over all their fingers and toes."(Our torment came upon them by night or while they were taking their midday nap. ) means, Allah's command, torment and vengeance came over them at night or while taking a nap in the middle of the day. Both of these times are periods of rest and leisure or heedlessness and amusement. Nations that were destroyed
8:60. Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of God and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom God doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of God, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly....(I will cast terror into the hearts of those who have disbelieved.) means, `you -- angels -- support the believers, strengthen their (battle) front against their enemies, thus, implementing My command to you. I will cast fear, disgrace and humiliation over those who defied My command and denied My Messenger, (so strike them over the necks, and smite over all their fingers and toes.) strike them on their foreheads to tear them apart and over the necks to cut them off, and cut off their limbs, hands and feet....Allah commands the Angels to fight and support the Believers
33:26. And those of the people of the Scripture who backed them (the disbelievers) Allah brought them down from their forts and cast terror into their hearts, (so that) a group (of them) you killed, and a group (of them) you made captives.
59:2. He it is Who drove out the disbelievers among the people of the Scripture (i.e. the Jews of the tribe of Bani An-Nadir) from their homes at the first gathering. You did not think that they would get out. And they thought that their fortresses would defend them from Allah! But Allah's (Torment) reached them from a place whereof they expected it not, and He cast terror into their hearts, so that they destroyed their own dwellings with their own hands and the hands of the believers. Then take admonition, O you with eyes (to see).(and cast terror into their hearts;) means fear, because they had supported the idolators in their war against the Messenger of Allah and the one who knows is not like the one who does not know. They had terrified the Muslims and intended to kill them so as to gain earthly power, but their plans backfired; the idolators ran away and the believers were victorious while the disbelievers were losers; where they had aimed for glory, they were humiliated. The Campaign against Banu Qurayzah
Allah said that he would cast terror. He commanded Muslims to participate in it. He cast terror so that two Jewish tribes were conquered, their defenders killed & survivors enslaved. The second cited instance is established as a warning to future victims. That concept is reinforced by another ayeh....Therefore, Allah sent His torment down on them; it can never be averted, and His appointed destiny touched them; it can never be resisted. The Prophet forced them to evacuate and abandon their fortified forts that Muslims did not think they would ever control. ...Then take admonition, O you with eyes.) meaning, "Contemplate the end of those who defied Allah's command, contradicted His Messenger and denied His Book. See how Allah's humiliating torment struck them in this life, as well as, the painful torment that Allah has reserved for them in the Hereafter.''... The End that Bani An-Nadir suffered
59:13. Of a truth ye are stronger (than they) because of the terror in their hearts, (sent) by God. This is because they are men devoid of understanding.
...(Verily, you are more fearful in their breasts than Allah.) meaning, the hypocrites fear you more than they fear Allah, as He says; (Behold! a section of them fear men as they fear Allah or even more.)... The False Promise of Support the Hypocrites gave to the Jews
By reading those ayat, we discover that Allah sanctified & mandated terrifying those Islam sets out to conquer. In addition to the exemplification in 33:26 & 59:2, two ahadith confirm that Moe was a terrorist.8:57. So if you gain the mastery over them in war, punish them severely in order to disperse those who are behind them, so that they may learn a lesson.
...(then disperse those who are behind them,) by severely punishing ﴿the captured people﴾ according to Ibn `Abbas, Al-Hasan Al-Basri, Ad-Dahhak, As-Suddi, `Ata' Al-Khurasani and Ibn `Uyaynah. This Ayah commands punishing them harshly and inflicting casualties on them. This way, other enemies, Arabs and non-Arabs, will be afraid and take a lesson from their end,... Striking Hard against Those Who disbelieve and break the Covenants
Made victorious by awe / with terror; what could make it more clear? It becomes obvious to all but bigots that the association of Islam with terrorism is well warranted by the evidence.Sahih Bukhari Volume 1, Book 7, Number 331:
Narrated Jabir bin 'Abdullah:
The Prophet said, "I have been given five things which were not given to any one else before me.
1. Allah made me victorious by awe, (by His frightening my enemies) for a distance of one month's journey. ...Sahih Bukhari Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220:
Narrated Abu Huraira:Allah's Apostle said, "I have been sent with the shortest expressions bearing the widest meanings, and I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy), and while I was sleeping, the keys of the treasures of the world were brought to me and put in my hand." Abu Huraira added: Allah's Apostle has left the world and now you, people, are bringing out those treasures (i.e. the Prophet did not benefit by them).
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights [Dead links removed, emphasis added.]
1. Any propaganda for war shall be prohibited by law.
2. Any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law.
1. Any State Party to the present Covenant may propose an amendment and file it with the Secretary-General of the United Nations. The Secretary-General of the United Nations shall thereupon communicate any proposed amendments to the States Parties to the present Covenant with a request that they notify him whether they favour a conference of States Parties for the purpose of considering and voting upon the proposals. In the event that at least one third of the States Parties favours such a conference, the Secretary-General shall convene the conference under the auspices of the United Nations. Any amendment adopted by a majority of the States Parties present and voting at the conference shall be submitted to the General Assembly of the United Nations for approval.
2. Amendments shall come into force when they have been approved by the General Assembly of the United Nations and accepted by a two-thirds majority of the States Parties to the present Covenant in accordance with their respective constitutional processes. 3. When amendments come into force, they shall be binding on those States Parties which have accepted them, other States Parties still being bound by the provisions of the present Covenant and any earlier amendment which they have accepted.
(1) That Article 20 does not authorize or require legislation or other action by the United States that would restrict the right of free speech and association protected by the Constitution and laws of the United States.
Understanding:
Problematic definitions:(1) That the Constitution and laws of the United States guarantee all persons equal protection of the law and provide extensive protections against discrimination. The United States understands distinctions based upon race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or any other status - as those terms are used in Article 2, paragraph 1 and Article 26 - to be permitted when such distinctions are, at minimum, rationally related to a legitimate governmental objective. The United States further understands the prohibition in paragraph 1 of Article 4 upon discrimination, in time of public emergency, based "solely" on the status of race, color, sex, language, religion or social origin not to bar distinctions that may have a disproportionate effect upon persons of a particular status.
- advocacy of
- religious hatred
- constitutes incitement
I have no doubt that anticipation of such egregious abuse of semantics was behind reservation number one cited above. Were it not for the election of an appeaser to the Presidency along with a like minded Senate majority, our liberty might be secure.
What will happen if Article 20 is amended to conform to the recent & pending resolutions combating defamation of religions & Durban II draft? I expect that President Obama will sign it, the Senate will ratify it, and the Supreme Court will lack the will & resolve necessary to rule it unconstitutional. It would then be possible to persecute American critics of Islam in foreign and international courts, contravening the first amendment.
Seekers of detailed legal analysis of the issue should refer to Why the U.S. Should Oppose "Defamation of Religions" Resolutions at the United Nations, a Heritage Foundation report and the bibliography in its footnotes.
My Groups
-
News We're Not Getting From MSM Updated: 1 hour ago
-
Education or Indoctrination In Socialism Updated: 6 hours ago
-
The United States Founding Fathers and Their Original Documents Updated: 6 hours ago
Neighborhood
Explore friends, family, friends & family, or entire neighborhood.
