16 posts tagged “fitna”

View other items tagged “fitna:” Photos, Audio, Videos, Books or Links. View “fitna” on Vox.

H.R. Clinton: Free Speech

Remarks on the Human Rights Agenda for the 21st Century


Hillary Rodham Clinton
Secretary of State
Georgetown University's Gaston Hall
Washington, DC
December 14, 2009

In our first session, we cosponsored the successful resolution on Freedom of Expression, a forceful declaration of principle at a time when that freedom is jeopardized by new efforts to constrain religious practice, including recently in Switzerland, and by efforts to criminalize the defamation of religion – a false solution which exchanges one wrong for another. And in the United Nations Security Council, I was privileged to chair the September session where we passed a resolution mandating protections against sexual violence in armed conflict.

The Secretary of State packed three lies into the single sentence quoted above.

  1. The cited resolution is not a forceful declaration of principle. While it is acclaimed as a rejection of the concept of  'defamation of religion', it embraces 'negative stereotyping' as a grounds for outlawing expression, a distinction without a difference. The clear intention is to make criticism of Islam a criminal offense. 
  2. The Swiss ban on minaret construction does not impair practice, it outlaws erection of a symbol of supremacism.  I find no mention of minarets in the Hilali & Khan Noble Qur'an  translation. I find no reference to the construction of  minarets in the four top hadith collections  & Ibn Kathir's Tafsir except to the rebuilding of one destroyed by fire.  
  3. There is no wrong to exchange; declaration of the fact that Muhammad, founder of Islam, was a terrorist is not wrong, neither is it an act which should be criminalized. While the Motoons exaggerate, they expose reality. Exposing the violent verses of the Qur'an is not wrong, it is an an exposure of intrinsic evil, as in the case of Geert Wilders' documentary, Fitna. There is no justification for outlawing Fitna and the Motoons.  Unlike Islamic scripture, they neither inculcate hatred nor incite violence.  The riots which followed publication of the Motoons  were incited by incendiary sermons at Juma Salat, not by the Motoons.

18 comments Tags: negative, stereotyping, hillary clinton, defamation, fitna, motoons

U.S.A. vs Durban Declaration


A press release distributed by Press Zoom  appears to be taken from the records of the Third Committee, describing the debate and voting on several resolutions before the committee.  

   Those resolutions included the five-part draft text on global efforts for the total elimination of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance and the comprehensive implementation of and follow-up to the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action ( document A/C.3/64/L.54/Rev.1 ), which was introduced by the representative of Sudan, on behalf of the Group of 77 and China.


32. Calls upon all States, in accordance with the commitments undertaken in paragraph 147 of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action,1 to take all necessary measures to combat incitement to violence motivated by racial hatred,
including through the misuse of print, audio-visual and electronic media and new communication technologies, and, in collaboration with service providers, to promote the use of such technologies, including the Internet to contribute to the fight against racism, in conformity with international standards of freedom of expression and taking all necessary measures to guarantee that right;

33. Encourages all States to include in their educational curricula and social programmes at all levels, as appropriate, knowledge of and tolerance and respect for all cultures, civilizations, religions, peoples and countries, as well as information on the follow-up to and implementation of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action; [Emphasis added.]

    Paragraph 32 quoted above is aimed directly at all criticism of Islam.  Its practical implementation is best illustrated by the words of Secretary General Ban Ki-moon.

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.” [Emphasis added for clarity.]

The man chiefly responsible for enforcing the Universal Declaration of Human Rights asserts that there is no right to tell the truth about Islam. Fitna is not hate speech nor is it incitement; it accurately depicts Islamic hate speech and incitement.  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.

    Paragraph 33 encourages turning our schools into instruments  of propaganda & indoctrination, bordering on proselytizing.  It is impossible for an informed and rational person to tolerate or respect Islam because Islam is supremely intolerant and denies our rights and dignity in addition to declaring perpetual war against us.

Speaking in explanation of vote before the vote, the representative of the United States said his country was deeply committed to fighting racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance at home and abroad.  Its founding commitment to the principle that all people were created equal was manifested in its own legislation and its work around the world.  Among other things, the United States had, in October, presented an action plan during the meeting of the Ad Hoc Committee on the elaboration of complementary standards. [Emphasis added for clarity.]

The bold faced clause is composed of three code phrases for 'Islamophobia'.  The preliminary meeting to prepare for the Durban II Racism Conference redefined racism to include criticism of Islam.  

 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; [Emphasis added for clarity, spelling original.]

    Obamanation is "deeply committed to fighting" criticism of Islam. Their whining about freedom of expression is a smoke screen to cover their actual intent: to silence all criticism of Islam and the  regime's Socialist agenda.


He said the United States had been unable to support the Durban Review Conference because it supported the 2001 World Conference, in toto.  The United States was deeply concerned about hateful speech, but did not agree that the best way to combat such speech was by its prohibition.  Rather, the United States believed an effective approach was based on three key elements, including robust legal protections against hate crimes, outreach to religious groups and vigorous defence of freedom of expression.  It regretted having to vote “no” on this text and looked forward to working together with the international community.  It remained deeply committed to ongoing, thoughtful dialogue on combating racism and racial discrimination. [Emphasis added for clarity, spelling original.]

    "Hateful speech" is code for any negative expression about Islam, including  Fitna: and the Danish Cartoons.  Notice that the regime is concerned about the outcome: silencing all criticism, they seek an  "effective approach", a method that will result in silence.

    "Hate crimes": if any expression should be criminalized, that is the one. Assaulting, killing or harassing  anyone is a crime, regardless of the victim's identity, religion, gender, etc. There is no group of persons more deserving of protection than any other.

    "Outreach to religious groups" is  code for pandering to Islam, submitting to its outrageous demands. Islam's most outrageous demand is that we submit and become Muslims.  We might as well be bitten by Dracula and become vampires.  Islamic law forbids any and all negative expression about Allah, Moe, the Qur'an & the laws  they issued.  If you doubt this, open Reliance of the Traveller to O8.7 and read the list of acts which entail leaving Islam, the penalty for which is death (O8.2).  For the law's applicability to non-Muslims, see  O11.10(5).

    Far from being a saintly Prophet, Moe was a pedophile who married the six year old daughter of his best friend. He  solicited the murder of critics. He was guilty of  genocide; preaching and practicing it. 

    Far from being a  "great religion of peace", Islam is a mercenary war cult, contrived for the purpose of enriching and empowering its founder by perpetuating war so that he could accrue the spoils.

    Islam's objective in demanding blasphemy laws & censorship is to disarm us in the war of ideas so that, in the words of George Washington,  "dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep to the slaughter".

    If you are a lover of liberty and the rights ensured by the Bill of Rights, then do your part to preserve them by signing and propagating these petitions. Send their links  to everyone you can hope to influence with an exhortation to sign and forward them.

2 comments Tags: racism, free speech, hate speech, ban ki-moon, fitna, shari'ah, danish cartoons, durban declaration …

View Obsession Now

An important message from the  Clarion Fund:

This Year, America has witnessed an increased number of radical extremist incidents. The recent tragedy at Fort Hood is only one of many alarming plots carried out on our soil. The threats are very real.

This Thanksgiving, we commemorate the one year anniversary of the attacks in Mumbai.

We must pause on this day to acknowledge our liberties and recognize those that actively seek to destroy our values. To mark this day, the producers of the award-winning Obsession: Radical Islam’s War Against the West are making the film available for free viewing online.

The free stream campaign will run from Monday November 23 until December 10 at www.radicalislam.org/obsession.

This campaign follows a highly successful free stream of The Third Jihad to mark the anniversary of 9/11. Over 35,000 viewers watched the film over the course of the 2 1/2 week campaign.

Together, these films represent the best educational tools available for informing the public about the true threats of radical Islam.



    Clicking the red hot spot band at the bottom of the graphic will open this site, which displays the Obsession video just right of center. They are also offering a combined package of Obsession and The Third Jihad on cd for $19.95.

    I saw Obsession on t.v. about two years ago. I was not favorably impressed by the p.c. disclaimer.  I do not deny the fact that the video depictions of the 'Arab Street' are accurate.  My problem is with adding adjectives to Islam.  Standard, off the shelf Islam as Moe preached and practiced it is violent and aggressive. Adding adjectives projects a false image of aggression as an exception to a passive standard.

    The fact that CAIR loudly objected to distribution of Obsession  in newspaper inserts stands as an excellent testimony to its value.  I have not seen The Third Jihad and  my dialup connection is too slow to watch the trailer.  I have the impression that The Third Jihad delves deeper into the non-violent threats of  conquest by  demographics, litigation, intimidation & deception.  

    Fitna exposes the scriptural roots of Islamic violence. What the West Needs to Know  is a longer but slower paced exposure of the scriptural basis for Jihad, revealed by experts  Once you have seen any or all  of those videos, you can delve deeper into the Qur'an, hadith & Shari'ah to learn more or turn to these resources for a more condensed version.
  • Islamic Terror.chm [30.4KB] A 6 part series from Freedom Ain't Free. 
  • Jihad.chm [45KB] A 6 part series from Freedom Ain't Free. 
  • What's Wrong With Islam/Muslims.chm [23KB]. New 10/11/08
  • Islamic Supremacism [49KB] A 3 part series from Freedom Ain't Free
  • FOMIJihad.chm [163.4KB] The Offensive Jihad thread from the once defunct FOMI anti Islam forum. This thread contains several significant quotes from Fiqh, both ancient and modern.
  • EgregiousAyat.chm: 4 tables containing the most egregious Qur'anic verses [Hilali & Khan];  1 table containing the most egregious sayings. & the most important segment of Reliance of the Traveller, Book O, Ch. 9.  6.723MB Zipped.
. 
2 comments Tags: obsession, fitna, third jihad, need to know

Petition of Ignorance

Muslim Thought Re-published  Dr. Hasan Yahya's "Petition of Ignorance: Banning of Islam" dated  02/18/09.

    Dr. Yahya's critique derisively focuses on form,  but his original post was mis formated, and several cross posts which I have seen, including the present case, copy that mis format, making them difficult to read.  To make matters worse, the article has no indentations or double spacing, it is one large block of text.  These brilliant, wise, all knowing scholars don't know how to use html or make their writing readable.

    The article criticized the Ban Islam Petition, which has, at the time of this writing, 889 signatures. Since the petition does not supply evidence  to support the charges it makes, its appeal is to people who are already familiar with the evil doctrines and practices of Islam.

    I have extracted selected statements from Dr.Yahya's article, placing them in the outer level of an unordered list, with my own comments and evidence in deeper levels of the list. .

  • [H]e brings the honorable Prophet of Islam, which Bernard Shaw, the Irish philosopher described as the top of 100 historical personalities in history, found on earth as a great leader.
  • The petition wanted to bring Muhammad (SAAS) the Prophet of Islam like Omar al-Bashir of Sudan, and Hitler for the Holocoust, and the Butcher of Bosnian Muslims of Checkoslovakia. Which I believe is a completely ignorant and unfounded claim.[...]
    • Moe died in 632, he is beyond the reach of  the World Court. His 'crimes' were cited in the petition because they are sunna, exemplary acts to be emulated by Muslims in all places, at all times.  It is Islam, not Moe in the dock, Dr.Yahya resorts to reductio ad absurdum, suggesting that petitions against David and Solomon would be parallels to the petition against Islam.  He ignores the fact that Judaism & Christianity underwent reformations while Islam remains and will always remain fixated in the 7th century.
  • In this petition there is comment number: 16, which shows Sir Winston Churchill stated in 1899, that Muslims utilize cruel rules and practices early in his life when he was ignorant in politics and of Islam as a great religion. By generalizing his view for all Muslims. [...]  
    • Churchill  served as a British Army officer & war correspondent in Somalia & India where he had ample opportunity for exposure to Islam.
    • Not withstanding the incomplete sentence, Churchill wrote about Islam, not Muslims. The cited comment does not appear at the specified location in the petition signatures, but may be seen in  a blog comment. 
  • Then you have comment number: 184, for William S. Arnott, Ph.D who strongly encourages such petitions.
    My comment: He has a Ph.D, to say the man is an authority, in fact the carrier of this Ph.D wrote: “Their [the Muslims] deterministic religion is not for the freedom of anyone but is for control of everyone.” I think the use of “anyone,” and “everyone” over generalizes in a situation when specificality is needed rendering his opinion out of the scientific circle by any quantitative or qualitative measurement.
    • With a little research, I discovered that Dr. Arnott is a retired psychologist, with degrees appropriate to his occupation. His critic has degrees in Educational Psychology & Sociology. How does Dr. Yahya have any more credibility than Dr. Arnott? 
  • In support of this position the petitioner cites comments from a range of contributors listed by numbers as follows: 16, 184, 536, 518, 82, 653, 655, 654, and 659. Comment number 536, which he breached as an innocent adolescent shool boy that “the muslims are a victim of islam. make no mistake about that.” And calls to rescue “the helpless victims of islam” and help them to be “a free people” He then proceeds to call on Saudi Arabia to change its ways. This stikes me as somewhat odd. Someone as learned as the petioner would claim to be would undoubtly understand that Saudi Arabia is a small portion of the Muslim world, which includes over 1.5 Billion followers. Its population according to almanac 2007, was 27 million. That is less than 2% of the overall Muslim population worldwide. Thanks for the advice, I am sure Saudi Arabia appreciates it.
    • The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia contains the focal point of Islam: the Kaaba, in the Grand Mosque in Mecca. The K.S.A. finances the spread of fundamentalist Islam all over the globe. 
  • Comment 518, the comment is written in French. Unfortunately, I do not speak French. I did, however, recognize some catalystic words. Words such as; Islam, Cathiliques, genocide, massacre, religions, Bouddiste, hindu, religion impose, and psychologiques, and sects, among others. My ethical resolve does not allow me to comment on something that I do not fully understand. I only wish the petitioner had such ethical standards. 
    • Without reading the comment, Dr. Yahya concludes that the commenter has low ethical standards, writing about a subject he does not comprehend. Dr. Yahya's hypocrisy is obvious. 
      • L'Islam appelle à l'esclavage des musulmanes envers les musulmans, des Juifs et des Catholiques. Cette religion appelle au génocide par le massacre en masse des athés et des autres religions qui ne sont pas "du livre" (bouddiste, hindou, etc). cette religion impose une loi (la charia) qui est épouvantable pour l'humanité (ex la lapidation des femmes, l'esclavage sexuel des non musulmanes, etc). Cette religion utilise des outils de manipulations psychologiques que l'on retrouve dans les sectes.
      • Google Translation: 
        • Islam calls for the enslavement of Muslims against Muslims, Jews and Catholics. This religion calls for genocide by the mass slaughter of atheists and other religions are not "book" (Buddhists, Hindu, etc.). that religion imposes a law (Sharia), which is terrible for humanity (eg stoning of women, sexual slavery of non-Muslim, etc.). This religion uses psychological manipulation tools found in sects.
    • Upon examination of the translated comment, I find therein nothing contrary to the truth; it is an accurate description of Islam. 
  • Comment 655. a comment from someone; s/he says: “The use of religion to torture, kill, malign, coerce and condone maltreatment of any living creature is heinous.” I agree so far. But on this statement I disagree. s/he said: “Islam does all of these things.” According to whom? This is your basic stereotypical mentality and wreaks of ignorance. Many of the comments are like this, one persons account or opinion but completely unsubstantiated and lacking in real value in understanding.
  • Comment 654. says:”In the interest of world peace ban islam.” S/he agrees on false claim or petition to ban Islam. I wonder to myself as I am reading this comment: what level of bigotry and racist view are these? I am appalled as a sociologist to see such free acceptance of illogical statements in a petition that is to be taken seriously. This comment is written by a blind follower. You could say anything and the “yes, count me in” mentality kicks in. I could probably go around and gets quotes from random people saying that they hate football. That doesn’t mean I will go forward with a petition to ban football.
  • Finally, the sponsor of the petition, his name is Lorenzo Bouchard, and his email, is labouchard@shaw.ca
    A final comment is what about the other numbers of comments which may be redicule the petition or call for peace and harmony in America in logical sense From the 659 or may be more comments? Just a question. Americans are not fools to accept such a racist and discriminative petition. Forty years ago, blacks compared with whites were less intillegent and some racist scientist like the one with Ph.D, the petitioner brought, claimed that in the 1980s, Today, Obama proved that blacks are not less than any person on earth if they have the chance and opportunity. For this I proudly say, long live America. And I feel sorry for this ill-guided petition to incite hatred in a healthy society like the USA.
    • What is the relevance of the name and contact information of the author of the petition?  Let the petition stand  or fall on its intrinsic merit.
    • Dr. Yahya arbitrarily dismissis comments in support of the petition. Why should we blindly accept criticism of it? 
    • The petition is not racist; Islam is a war cult, not a race. Islam is not limited to Arabia, Arabs conquered North Africa, nearly half of Asia and much of Southern & Eastern Europe. It has enslaved people of several races.  Rejecting a pseudo religion which commands its votaries to conquer the world, performing acts of terrorism & genocide in the process is not evil, it is a wise decision based on verifiable facts and sound judgment. 
    A newer petition, urges the World Court to grant injunctive relief against Islam.It presents evidence of Islam's static violation of international human rights conventions. It is carefully formatted and its evidence is linked to source documents for easy verification & contextual exploration. The International Qur'an Petition, published August 18, has 116 signatures at present.  

    Muslims, seeking to impose their blasphemy laws onto the entire world, assert that all criticism of islam is racism and hate speech, intended to incite violence against Muslims.   Those assertions are intended to shut off debate, precluding all questioning of Islam's bona fides.  That is the purpose of the Defamation of Religions resolution being debated by the Third Committee and a proposal to add a protocol to ICERD,  being written by the Ad Hoc Committee for the Elaboration of Complementary Standards.

    The resolution and the protocol seek to use international human rights law against us, rendering us defenseless in the ideological war which Islam is waging against our liberties.  The International Qur'an Petition is our way of turning the tables on Islam, using their tactic against them. Islam's canon of scripture, tradition & jurisprudence contravenes ICERD, ICCPR & CPPCG.  The petition offers proof of that fact. If the international human rights covenants are to have any meaning and effect, Islam must be proscribed by law.  

    I am asking you to read the International Qur'an Petition and evaluate the evidence for yourself. If you agree that Islam must be proscribed, sign the petition and send it to everyone you can hope to influence with an exhortation to sign and forward it. You can copy the petition's text and paste it into an email or download it in the form of a 14kb pdf file for use as an email attachment.

    Proscribe Islam Petition Rough Draft  is a71kb pdf file containing the full quotes of the the evidence of Islam's guilt. .Islam vs Human Rights 64kb chm file compiled from 7 blog posts exposing Islam's static violations of ICCPR.   

    The fact, revealed by the codified oral traditions of Moe's companions, is that Islam's mission is mercenary, its method is martial and its founder was a lecher, pedophile and soborner of murder.   That is truth, not hate speech. That is condemnation of Islam, not an exhortation to assault or murder Muslims.

    The Danish Cartoons depict Moe as a terrorist. They  exaggerate; Moe never possessed a bomb because he died before the invention of explosives. But he was, by his own admission, a terrorist.  The cartoons do not suggest attacks against Muslims. The violence was spawned by the preaching of radical clerics, not by the cartoons. Fitna, the short video documentary by Geert Wilders, illustrates that fact most effectively. It shows Allah's commands and the cleric's raving along with the resultant rioting. Fitna is neither hate speech nor incitement, it is an expose of Islam's hate speech and incitement to violence.

Post a comment Tags: racism, fitna, danish cartoons, international qur'an petition, ban islam petition

Defamation of Religions: Preliminary Vote

WND reports that the Third Committee held a preliminary vote Nov. 12  on the Defamation of Religions resolution: 81:55:43. Support declined by 5 votes, opposition increased by 2 and abstentions increased by 1.  The present level of support indicates that  the General Assembly will pass the resolution.

    The good news is that, while the resolution will pass, it will not become enforcible law.  The bad news is that it will  give the UN stamp of approval to blasphemy laws used by Pakistan and other nations to suppress and persecute Christians and other minorities.  The resolution calls on member states to enact and enforce legislation to criminalize criticism of Islam.

    The Department of State expresses opposition to inclusion of references to defamation of religions, but it supports inclusion of negative stereotypes, as included in the recent Freedom of Belief and Expression resolution.  Examine the relevant text from that document. [Emphasis added.]

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;

This sample is from last year's draft resolution.

Expresses deep concern at the negative stereotyping of religions and manifestations of intolerance and discrimination in matters of religion or belief still evident in the world;


The following sample is from Pakistan's submission to the Ad Hoc Committee for Elaboration of Complementary Standards.

legal prohibition of publication of material that negatively stereotypes, insults, or uses offensive language in matters regarded by followers of any religion or belief as sacred or inherent to their dignity as human beings, with the aim or protecting their fundamental human rights,

    What are they really complaining about?  We can get a hint from their latest Islamophobia report, which contains a list of "Islamophobic incidents".

Political and Social Campaigns against Islam and Muslims
 
Campaign Warns Americans about Looming Shariah Code – Detroit billboard said religious law imposed by Islam threatened rights. Members of the United American Committee (UAC) stated that Shariah might be spreading around the world, but it was not going to be established in the United States without opposition. Officials had reportedly erected a 48-foot-long billboard just outside of Detroit, home to one of the largest groups of Muslims in the U.S.


Danish Muhammad Cartoonist Returns with New Work – Kurt Westergaard, the Danish caricaturist forced into hiding after the publication of his depiction of the Prophet Muhammad in the newspaper Jyllands-Posten in 2005, was set to return with a new set of potentially controversial drawings. According to a Report in the Copenhagen Post, Westergaard was expected to have 26 illustrations in a new book that compiled the
sardonic columns by Danish writer Lars Hedegaard for the Berlingske Tidende newspaper.

Wilders plans second anti-Islam film – Rightwing MP Geert Wilders has told De Telegraaf newspaper that he was planning to make a follow-up to his controversial anti-Islam film, Fitna. The new piece, expected to be released in 2010, will deal with the negative effects of what Wilders called the advance of Islam in Western countries.

    If those examples do not make it clear to you, examine this quote from a letter sent by the OIC to the Chairman of the Ad Hoc Cmte. in October.

For instance, the British National Putty leader Nick Grffin has referred to Islam as a "a vicious and wicked religion"; some in Switzerland are strongly opposed to the construction of minarets on mosques as symbols of Islam; while in Denmark and the Netherlands the personality of Prophet Mohammad (PBUH) has been deliberately ridiculed with the intention to violate the sentiments of Muslims. These are only some of the clear examples not just of discrimination against Muslims as individuals but of Islam as a religion as well as well as its revered personalities and sacred symbols. Accordingly, the contention that human rights standards should apply only to individuals is not credible. Therefore, the OIC ls advocating the need to address these concepts in a holistic and legal manner: to avoid their negative impact on the fundamental rights and freedoms to be enjoyed by the individuals, groups of individuals and communities. [Emphasis added. ]

It becomes clear that Islam will not tolerate any criticism whatsoever. Islam seeks to criminalize all criticism, regardless of the truth thereof.  The obvious references to Fitna and the Danish cartoons leave no doubt.  Fitna displayed the hate speech & violence which fill the Qur'an along with their effects in the Arab street.  The Cartoons depict Moe as a terrorist, which he was even though he never possessed a bomb. He said that he was "made victorious with terror."

    What can we do about this situation? Nothing directly, but we can sign and promote two on line petitions opposing the resolution and one that counter attacks. 

Sign those petitions and solicit the support of  everyone you can hope to influence.  Urge your Congressman to sign onto H. Res. 763 as a co-sponsor and work to get it to the floor for a vote.  If you know your Zip Code, you can use the email form at http://www.congress.org/ .   


2 comments Tags: islam, cartoons, religions, stereotyping, defamation, fitna

Defamation || Negative Stereotyping

Examine these definitions of defamation & stereotyping:

Definitions of defamation on the Web:

  • a false accusation of an offense or a malicious misrepresentation of someone's words or actions
  • aspersion: an abusive attack on a person's character or good name
    wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn
  • In law, defamation (also called calumny, libel (for written words), slander (for spoken words), and vilification) is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government or nation a ...
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation

Definitions of stereotyping on the Web:

  • A stereotype is a phrase relating to all the members of class or set. The term is often used with a negative connotation when referring to an ...
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stereotyping
  • stereotype - pigeonhole: treat or classify according to a mental stereotype; "I was stereotyped as a lazy Southern European"

Defamation involves factual falsity. Stereotyping involves broad generalization.  What is the big deal; what is the significance of these concepts?   Both are included in the latest edition of the UN's Defamation of Religions [Islam] resolution tabled in the Third Committee by Syria for the OIC on October 29, 2010.  

    The Department of State of the United States of America opposes the defamation clause and supports the negative stereotyping clause.
Statement by the Delegation of the United States of America
Delivered by Sarah Cleveland
Geneva, 30 September 2009

While we do not support the concept of “defamation of religions” for reasons well known to this Council, my government is strongly committed to religious freedom and has condemned the use of negative and derogatory stereotypes and discrimination and/or discriminatory policies. We recognize that such stereotyping and discrimination affects individuals of all faiths and races, and express our strong condemnation of the types of such intolerance provided in the report.

    What's the big deal? When accused of defamation, we have a defense: truth. When accused of stereotyping, what defense do we have?  Consider the example of Danish Cartoons.    Moe was depicted with a bomb in his bonnet, implying that he was a terrorist and, by inferrence, that all Muslims are terrorists  Moe died long before the invention of gun powder, so he never possessed a bomb.  Does that preclude him from being a terrorist?  

    Speaking for Allah, Moe said:  "We shall cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieve, because they joined others in worship with Allâh, for which He had sent no authority; their abode will be the Fire and how evil is the abode of the Zâlimûn (polytheists and wrong­doers)[3:151] He was speaking for Allah when he said: (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.” [8:12]

    So Moe talked tough. Did he carry out those threats? Yes, he did; the evidence is found in the Qur'an.

  • 33:26 And those of the people of the Scripture who backed them (the disbelievers) Allâh 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.
    • And He caused you to inherit their lands, and their houses, and their riches, and a land which you had not trodden (before). And Allâh is Able to do all things.
Is there any confirmation?  Of course there is, in the hadith.
  • 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).

Terror made Moe victorious. What more proof do you need? Moe was a terrorist. What of the Ummah? Are they all terrorists?  They are if they emulate Moe.
  • 33:21. Indeed in the Messenger of Allâh (Muhammad ) you have a good example to follow for him who hopes in (the Meeting with) Allâh and the Last Day and remembers Allâh much. 
    To understand these issues, one needs to read the Qur'an & hadith and observe the context as a whole. Our misleaders want us to accept a false description of Islam as a "religion of peace".  They want us to believe that Islamic aggression is a deviation from the standard, performed by a tiny minority who have hijacked a great religion.

    Only those who will expend the time and effort needed to read Islam's canon of scripture, tradition, exegeses & jurisprudence will fully comprehend this issue. Aggression is foundational to Islam. Read Surah Al-Anfal & At-Taubah.  Turn back and read 9:111 again.

  • 9:111. Verily, Allâh has purchased of the believers their lives and their properties; for the price that theirs shall be the Paradise. They fight in Allâh's Cause, so they kill (others) and are killed. It is a promise in truth which is binding on Him in the Taurât (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel) and the Qur'ân. And who is truer to his covenant than Allâh? Then rejoice in the bargain which you have concluded. That is the supreme success .

What is the relationship between Allah and the Muslims? What do the Muslims do for Allah?  They are his slaves who fight in his cause, kill and are killed. Return to Al-Anfal and read from ayeh 2 to 42.    What is the meaning of "spend out of that We have provided them"?  What is the meaning of ":to go out from your home with the truth,"?

  • 9:88. But the Messenger (Muhammad ) and those who believed with him (in Islâmic Monotheism) strove hard and fought with their wealth and their lives (in Allâh's Cause). Such are they for whom are the good things, and it is they who will be successful.

  • 9:89. For them Allâh has got ready Gardens (Paradise) under which rivers flow, to dwell therein forever. That is the supreme success.

  • 9:90. And those who made excuses from the bedouins came (to you, O Prophet ) asking your permission to exempt them (from the battle), and those who had lied to Allâh and His Messenger sat at home (without asking the permission for it); a painful torment will seize those of them who disbelieve. 
  • 9:91. There is no blame on those who are weak or ill or who find no resources to spend [in holy fighting (Jihâd)], if they are sincere and true (in duty) to Allâh and His Messenger. No ground (of complaint) can there be against the Muhsinûn (good-doers - see the footnote of V.9:120). And Allâh is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. 
Spending, in the context of 8:3, is a reference to Jihad.
  • 9:83. If Allâh brings you back to a party of them (the hypocrites), and they ask your permission to go out (to fight), say: "Never shall you go out with me, nor fight an enemy with me; you agreed to sit inactive on the first occasion, then you sit (now) with those who lag behind."

Go out, in the context of 8:5, is a reference to Jihad.  
  • 8:2. The believers are only those who, when Allâh is mentioned, feel a fear in their hearts and when His Verses (this Qur'ân) are recited unto them, they (i.e. the Verses) increase their Faith; and they put their trust in their Lord (Alone); 
  • 8:3. Who perform As-Salât (Iqâmat­as­Salât) and spend out of that We have provided  them.
  • 8:4. It is they who are the believers in truth. For them are grades of dignity with their Lord, and Forgiveness and a generous provision (Paradise).
  • 8:5. As your Lord caused you (O Muhammad ) to go out from your home with the truth, and verily, a party among the believers disliked it;

It is clear from the context, that those who do not participate in Jihad when called are not believers. Believers are only those who participate in Jihad.  If they do not emulate Moe, they are not believers.  Those who neither participate directly in genocidal Jihad nor finance it, support the families of men at the battlefront, pray for victory nor engage in propaganda to support the Jihad are hypocrites, not believers. Hypocrites are to be fought and killed along with Kufar. [4:89]

    What does this boil down to in the context of the  '10 version of the Defamation of Religions resolution?

17. Welcomes the recent steps taken by Member States to protect freedom of religion through the enactment or strengthening of domestic frameworks and legislations to prevent the defamation of religions and the negative stereotyping of religious groups;

The context is one of a demand for national and international legislation to criminalize all criticism of Islam.   When we counter  "religion of peace" with  exposure of Allah's imperatives and Moe's razia & ghazwat, we are accused of "defamation of Islam" and "negative stereotyping", the very acts the resolution seeks to outlaw.

11. Reaffirms that general recommendation XV (42) of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination,15 in which the Committee stipulated that the prohibition of the dissemination of all ideas based upon racial superiority or hatred is compatible with freedom of opinion and expression, is equally applicable to the question of incitement to religious hatred;

12. Strongly condemns all manifestations and acts of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance against national or ethnic,
religious and linguistic minorities and migrants and the stereotypes often applied to them, including on the basis of religion or belief, and urges all States to apply and, where applicable, reinforce existing laws when such xenophobic or intolerant acts, manifestations or expressions occur, in order to eradicate impunity for those who commit xenophobic and racist acts;

13. Reaffirms the obligation of all States to enact the necessary legislation to prohibit the advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence, and encourages States, in their  Xenophobia and Related Intolerance,7 to include aspects relating to national or ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities in their national plans of action and, in this context, to take forms of multiple discrimination against minorities fully into account;

15. Urges all States to provide, within their respective legal and constitutional systems, adequate protection against acts of hatred, discrimination, intimidation and coercion resulting from the defamation of religions, and incitement to religious hatred in general;

They are demanding that member states enact and enforce legislation prohibiting all criticism of Islam. In his introduction to the OIC Observatory on Islamophobia, March 31 '08,  Professor Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, Secretary General of the Organization of Islamic Conference, had this to say about Islamophobia.

The Muslim Ummah has noticed with utmost concern the continued attacks by a section of marginal groups and individuals in the West on the most sacred symbols of Islam including the Holy Quran and Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) in an offensive and denigrating manner, the most recent being the reprints of the blasphemous cartoons by 17 Danish newspapers on February 13, 2008 and the release of the film Fitna by a Dutch Parliamentarian on March 27, 2008. This apart, Muslims continue to be stereotyped, discriminated and profiled in many Western countries that have contributed to the issue. [Emphasis added.]

The Danish Cartoons & Fitna are the targets of their scorn because the cartoons accurately describe Moe as a terrorist and Fitna exposes the true source of Islamic violence.  

    Big deal? Blessed right it is!!! Under the proposed legislation, the next Hitler need only disguise his war machine as a religion, and nobody can question or criticize  it without being persecuted.  That is precisely what Moe did 1399 years ago. The OIC, their factotums in the UN and the Obama administration seek to shield Islam from all questioning and criticism.  

We can counter attack.

Sign the petitions and urge your family, friends and associates to sign and promote them. Visit http://www.congress.org/  , enter your Zip Code and send your Congressman an email demanding that H.Res.763 be brought to the floor and passed before the final vote on the Defamation of Religions resolution.

    The resolution will not become binding, enforcible international law, but it adds an aura of moral authority to local blasphemy laws which are used to persecute indigenous Christians. The proposed protocol to ICERD, being written by the Ad Hoc Committee for the Elaboration of Complementary Standards,  will become binding international law, enforcible in court. Eternal vigilancemeta is the price of liberty. Sign the petitions and exhort Congress to pass H.Res.763. Remain alert and keep the pressure on.

2 comments Tags: terrorism, stereotyping, defamation, fitna, danish cartoons

Defamation of Religions: Background Info.


    In remarks about the pending Defamation of Religions resolution, Professor Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, Secretary General of the Organization of Islamic Conference, said this. 

"It is important to note that passage of these resolutions by a majority vote beyond the membership of the OIC lends international legitimacy to the OIC position on this issue,"

That confirms the obvious: passing defamation resolutions legitimizes Islam's malicious malarkey.  Lets drill down to the crucial details.


    In his introduction to the OIC Observatory on Islamophobia, March 31 '08,  Professor Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu, Secretary General of the Organization of Islamic Conference, had this to say about Islamophobia.

The Muslim Ummah has noticed with utmost concern the continued attacks by a section of marginal groups and individuals in the West on the most sacred symbols of Islam including the Holy Quran and Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) in an offensive and denigrating manner, the most recent being the reprints of the blasphemous cartoons by 17 Danish newspapers on February 13, 2008 and the release of the film Fitna by a Dutch Parliamentarian on March 27, 2008. This apart, Muslims continue to be stereotyped, discriminated and profiled in many Western countries that have contributed to the issue. [Emphasis added.]

Notice that the argument begins with an ad hominem argument: "marginal groups and individuals".  Ihsanoglu slapped a "marginal" label on the cartoonists and Geert Wilders.  Note that the cartoons are labeled "blasphemous". Is that label deserved?  In the cartoons, Moe is depicted as a terrorist; is that blasphemy if the depiction is true?  Consider what codified Islamic oral tradition tells us about the matter.
  • Allah made me victorious by awe, (by His frightening my enemies) for a distance of one month's journey. [Sahih Bukhari 1.7.331]
  • I have been made victorious with terror (cast in the hearts of the enemy) [Sahih Bukhari 4.52.220] [Emphasis added.]
The cartoons exaggerate, because Moe never possessed a bomb, but they are they blasphemy if their message is true?

    Fitna is described as an attack on the Holy Quran because it displayed verses which incite violence, demonstrated their use in kutbah and displayed images of the results. Refer to  Fitna: Supporting Documentation for documentation of the Qur'an verses used in Fitna and Wilders' address to the Dutch Parliament.  Is truthful speech blasphemy?

    CNN reported on remarks by the OIC and other Muslims and included a quote from Ban Ki-moon.

U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon condemned the film, calling it "offensively anti-Islamic" while urging calm.

"There is no justification for hate speech or incitement to violence," he said in a statement. "The right of free expression is not at stake here."

Ban Ki-Moon labeled Fitna hate speech and incitement to violence, but the hate speech, incitement & violence depicted in the documentary came from the pens,  tongues & hands of Muslims, not from Geert Wilders, his narrative is objective and accurate. 

    Payvand's Iran News reported on remarks by the OIC General Secretary. 

"The film was a deliberate act of discrimination against Muslims" that aimed to "provoke unrest and intolerance,"

Pakistan, which frequently introduces the OIC resolutions to the General Assembly and Human Rights Council, was also quoted. 

Pakistan said it told the Dutch ambassador that it was incumbent on the Netherlands to prosecute Wilders for defamation and deliberately hurting Muslim sentiments, according to IRNA reporter in Islamabad.

Islam wanted Wilders prosecuted for defamation of Islam. In a few months, he will be defending himself before a Dutch tribunal. The OIC's resolutions seek the persecution of all who criticize Islam. 


    Examine the remarks of Ekmeleddin Ihsanoglu to the OIC Council of Foreign Ministers in Uganda, June '08.

Fourth: The level of the OIC Islamophobia Observatory, which we have established in order to monitor and document all manifestation of this scourge, and to deal with them in an interactive manner.

Taken together, this plan has proven its merit and we have been able to achieve convincing progress at all these levels mainly the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva, and the UN General Assembly.

The United Nations General Assembly adopted similar resolutions against the defamation of Islam.

In confronting the Danish cartoons and the Dutch film “Fitna”, we sent a clear message to the West regarding the red lines that should not be crossed. As we speak, the official West and its public opinion are all now well-aware of the sensitivities of these issues. They have also started to look seriously into the question of freedom of expression from the perspective of its inherent responsibility, which should not be overlooked.

The Ten Year Plan proved its merit with the passage of defamation resolutions by the UN.  Note the mention of "red lines that should not be crossed"; that is a thinly veiled threat of physical violence. Does anyone remember what happened to the film maker Theo van Gogh? In the last sentence of the quote, freedom of expression is mentioned, an obvious reference to the  terms of limitation used in the resolutions. 

    What accounts for Islam's extreme sensitivity to criticism?  We can find the answer in Islamic law: Reliance of the Traveller's Book O [Justice]. O8.7 lists 20 things that entail apostasy. Here are a few relevant  items in that list.

-4- to revile Allah or His messenger (Allah bless him and give him peace);

-5- to deny the existence of Allah, His beginingless eternality, His endless eternality, or to deny any of His attributes which the consensus of Muslims ascribes to Him (dis: v1);

-6- to be sarcastic about Allah's name, His command, His interdiction, His promise, or His threat;

-7- to deny any verse of the Koran or anything which by scholarly consensus (def: b7) belongs to it, or to add a verse that does belong to it;

-15- to hold that any of Allah's messengers or prophets are liars, or to deny their being sent;

(n: `Ala' al-din' Abidin adds the following:

-16- to revile the religion of Islam;

-19- to be sarcastic about any ruling of the Sacred Law;

-20- or to deny that Allah intended the Prophet's message (Allah bless him and give him peace) to be the religion followed by the entire world (dis: w4.3-4) (al-Hadiyya al-`Ala'iyya (y4), 423-24). ) 

One of the rules applied to dhimmis is equally instructive.  What is impermissible to say about Allah or Moe?  According to previously quoted statements, it is impermissible to link Islamic violence with Islamic scripture & tradition.

O11.10

The agreement is also violated (A: with respect to the offender alone) if the state has stipulated that any of the following things break it, and one of the subjects does so anyway, though if the state has not stipulated that these break the agreement, then they do not; namely, if one of the subject people:

-3- leads a Muslim away from Islam;

-5- or mentions something impermissible about Allah, the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace), or Islam.

The penalty for apostasy is death [O8.2]. Remember the fatwa against Salman Rushdie and the reward offered for killing him?  In a recent protest against Geert Wilders visiting England, Muslims displayed signs saying "Freedom Go To Hell" and "Islam Will Dominate.".  

    If we are to have an honest and open debate about domestic, foreign and military policies affecting our national security, we must be able to discuss Islam's fundamental nature and the relationship between the orthodox doctrines expressed in its scripture, exemplified in its traditions and codified in its jurisprudence.  When liars such as George Bush and Barack Obama assert that Islam is peaceful, we must be free to present proof that they are misrepresenting reality. 

    UN resolutions condemning defamation of Islam have another unacceptable effect: they reinforce and give undeserved legitimacy to blasphemy laws which are used to persecute religious minorities in lands where Allah's writ runs such as Pakistan where, if the courts don't execute you for any "blasphemous" word or act, the mob will.  

    As we wait for revelation of the contents of the '10 version, let us examine the history of their campaign to silence their critics.   In 1999, when the original Combating Defamation of Islam resolution was passed, Pakistan made some revealing remarks in the Economic And Social Council.

1. Mr. AKRAM (Pakistan), introducing draft resolution E/CN.4/1999/L.40 on behalf of the States Members of the United Nations that were members of the Organization of the Islamic Conference, said that, in the past few years, there had been new manifestations of intolerance and misunderstanding, not to say hatred, of Islam and Muslims in various parts of the world. It was to be feared that those manifestations might become as widespread and endemic as antisemitism had been in the past. There was a tendency in some countries and in the international media to portray Islam as a religion hostile to human rights, threatening to the Western world and associated with terrorism and violence, whereas, with the Quran, Islam had given the world its first human rights charter. No other religion received such constant negative media coverage. That defamation compaign was reflected in growing intolerance towards Muslims. [Emphasis added.]

    Examine the emphasized clauses. Reading inter alia, it is obvious that a subliminal link is being drawn between criticism of Islam and Hitler's holocaust. Akram was setting up a false charge of incipient genocide.  In the second section of emphasized text, there is mention of a media tendency to portray Islam as hostile to human rights, threatening and associated with terrorism and violence.

    The clear implication is that those characterizations of Islam are false. Unfortunately, they are not. Islam is hostile to human rights: its doctrine of perpetual war against everyone who does not submit to its demands is a violation of the right to life.  Its declaration that  our blood and property only become sacred to Muslims when we become Muslims denies our human dignity and rights.   These facts are documented in Islam vs Human Rights.

    Islam is threatening to the western world. It has a historical track record of invading Spain, Italy, France , Austria, and other western nations.  Islam is associated with violence and terrorism. Two Surahs of the Qur'an are entirely dedicated to warmongering. Four of the six canonical hadith collections have books of Jihad or expedition. Moe preached and practiced terrorism for future generations to emulate.

    The Defamation of Islam resolution contained these expressions.

               1.             Expresses deep concern at negative stereotyping of religions;

 

            2.             Also expresses deep concern that Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and with terrorism;

 

            3.             Expresses its concern at any role in which the print, audio­visual or electronic media or any other means is used to incite acts of violence, xenophobia or related intolerance and discrimination towards Islam and any other religion;

 

            4.             Urges all States, within their national legal framework, in conformity with international human rights instruments to take all appropriate measures to combat hatred, discrimination, intolerance and acts of violence, intimidation and coercion motivated by religious intolerance, including attacks on religious places, and to encourage understanding, tolerance and respect in matters relating to freedom of religion or belief;

The resolution urged states to enact and enforce extremely broad legislation which would violate our First Amendment. 

    In '05, the resolution complained of  involvement of political parties and use of the internet to communicate facts about Islam.  In the spring of '09, the resolution included this boilerplate. 

14. Reaffirms the obligation of all States to enact the necessary legislation to prohibit the advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence, and encourages States, in their follow-up to the World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance,7 to include aspects relating to national or  ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities in their national plans of action and, in this context, to take forms of multiple discrimination against minorities fully into account;

15. Invites all States to put into practice the provisions of the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief;3

16. Urges all States to provide, within their respective legal and constitutional systems, adequate protection against acts of hatred, discrimination,
intimidation and coercion resulting from defamation of religions, and incitement to religious hatred in general, to take all possible measures to promote tolerance and respect for all religions and beliefs and the understanding of their value systems and to complement legal systems with intellectual and moral strategies to combat religious hatred and intolerance;

    If we document the fact that Islam inculcates hatred and incites violence, we are accused of "incitement to religious hatred".  Turn back to review Ban Ki-moon's incendiary remarks about Fitna.  There is no excuse for that sort of bigotry. There is no excuse for demands to enshrine it in national & international law.

     

    The following list is included to assist those who desire to delve deeper into the history and philosophy of the defamation resolutions. 

UN documents listed in the footnotes of  Defamation of Religions" The End of Pluralism?, published by the Beckett Fund    Other relevant  documents of interest:

2 comments Tags: geert wilders, oic, ban ki-moon, fitna, danish cartoons, defamation of religion, organization of islamic con..., ekmeleddin ihsanoglu …

Ad Hoc Committee Leaves Work Unfinished

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.

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:

  1.     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;
  2.    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;
  3.    not to permit national or local public authorities incite racial, ethnic, national and religious hatred or discriininationg,
  4.   not to permit political parties incite racial, ethnic, national and religious hatred or discrimination. .
  5.   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.

    To decode the substance of the highlighted expressions, we must keep one linguistic abuse constantly in mind:

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;

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.

    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. 

ICCPR

Article 20

  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.
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.

    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.

Post a comment Tags: protocol, ban ki-moon, fitna, unhrc, defamation of religions, icerd, ad hoc committee …

UNHRC US Delegation Reveals Treachery


The  U.S. Delegation to the UNHRC  uttered and published a statement on a human rights report. That statement exposes the  Obama administration's treason to scrutiny; I can not resist.  I have therefore selected excerpts for dissection. [Emphasis added.]

Report of the Special Rapporteur on contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/12session/A-HRC-12-38_E.pdf

http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/publisher,UNGA,,,4ab0a9180,0.html

http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N08/493/42/PDF/N0849342.pdf?OpenElement

The Human Rights Council – 12th session
Statement by the Delegation of the United States of America
Delivered by Sarah Cleveland
Geneva, 30 September 2009


While we do not support the concept of “defamation of religions” for reasons well known to this Council, my government is strongly committed to religious freedom and has condemned the use of negative and derogatory stereotypes and discrimination and/or discriminatory policies. We recognize that such stereotyping and discrimination affects individuals of all faiths and races, and express our strong condemnation of the types of such intolerance provided in the report.

It is good to read that the Obama administration does not support the concept of defamation of  Islam, but it would be better  if they would emphatically condemn it. The term "negative and derogatory stereotypes" raises a red flag.  Its implication: 'all Muslims are evil' its reality: Islam is evil. It is a veiled reference to Geert Wilders' video Fitna and the infamous Danish Cartoons. Once that overly broad term is enshrined in law, it will be used to criminalize all criticism of Islam. 


As noted in our response to the High Commissioner on the issue of defamation of religion, the United States believes the best way for governments to address the issues underlying intolerance is to develop effective legal regimes to address acts of discrimination and bias-inspired crime; to condemn hateful speech and proactively reach out to all religious communities, especially minority groups. We strive to do this while vigorously defending the freedom of religion and freedom of expression.


Crime is crime, regardless of the identity of the victim. Rape or robbery, assault or murder, the effect is the same whether the victims is straight or queer, Atheist or Muslim and ought to carry equal penalty dependent on the offense, not the victim.

    Condemning hateful speech raises the issue of definition. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon declared Fitna and the Danish Cartoons to be hate speech, following the lead of the OIC. From their viewpoint, any truthful criticism of Islam is hateful speech.  Their tactical objective is to criminalize all criticism of Islam so that we will be completely disarmed in the war of ideas.  The Obama administration is siding with the enemy, against the First Amendment right of free expression.

    The advocacy of proactively reaching out to all religious communities ... especially minority groups points out significant hypocrisy.

  • condemned the use of negative and derogatory stereotypes and discrimination
  • proactively reach out to all religious communities, especially minority groups
The inconsistency should be immediately obvious to everyone. So should the second incidence of hypocrisy  in that paragraph.
  • condemn hateful speech
  • while vigorously defending ... freedom of expression
When the cartoonists pointed out the fact that Muhammad was a terrorist,  their  art was condemned as hateful speech. The OIC and its factotums in  the UN  Expresses deep concern in this respect that Islam is frequently and wrongly associated with human rights violations and terrorism; I refuted that assertion in Freedom of Opinion and Expression by revealing the source of the association.   That is truth, not hate speech. President Obama would condemn it.


Racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance are serious challenges facing the international community and the United States believes they must be examined methodically and deliberately. The United States submits that this process of self-examination and action by the international community begin with greater opportunities to exchange views and address empirical data and practice on matters related to racial, ethnic, and religious diversity, discrimination, and intolerance – notably through discussions in the Ad Hoc Committee on Complementary Standards – so as to broaden our common understanding of these important issues and provide a solid foundation for a broad-based consensus for further actions and initiatives.


You think that racism refers to irrational hatred of people whose skin color is different. That is not what the word means to the OIC and UN. To them,  it  means criticism of and enmity to Islam.

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;


Since the publication of the Durban II Preliminary Document,  when you read racism in a UN document, you can translate it as Islamophobia. No word is safe in the Orwellian UN.  Related intolerance is a code phrase for the same concept. Islamophobia implies irrational fear and loathing. What is irrational about fear and loathing of a war cult which has murdered 270*106  people in the last 1386 years?

    The Ad Hoc Committee on Complementary Standards has an abstract name which contains no hint of its purpose. The committee is a subset of the UNHRC. Its purpose is to write a legally binding protocol to ICERD. The protocol will make criticism of Islam a criminal offense in international law.  The Obama administration just endorsed that damnable program of action which directly contravenes the First Amendment. The details are contained in a series of blog posts.

The various national submissions to the committee are contained in this pdf file: Outline for the Ad Hoc Committee on Complementary Standards Consultations.  The Non-Paper Paper, which makes the objective crystal clear, is contained in this pdf file: http://www.eyeontheun.org/assets/attachments/documents/7750.pdf.


Post a comment Tags: racism, freedom of expression, islamophobia, fitna, unhrc, danish cartoons, negative and derogatory ste..., stereotyping and discrimina... …

Ad Hoc Cmte: Non-Paper


On December 5, 2008, there was issued, on the letterhead of  the High Commissioner For Human Rights, by Ambassador Idriss Jazairy,  President of the Ad Hoc Committee on Complementary Standards,  a "Non-Paper Paper" and a cover letter explaining its purpose. [Emphasis & links added.]
[Due to the use of OCR to extract quotes from scanned document images, there will be some spelling errors and a few Anglicized words will be Americanized. ]

The purpose of this "Non paper" is to stimulate a constructive debate on the content and the  framework of major areas of vulnerability which for reasons of substance and/or of procedure suffer from protection gaps. Some of these areas are related to the contemporary manifestations of racism, ~ racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance.The purpose of this "Non-paper" is also to invite concrete responses and recommendations based on its content.  

    The Ambassador set forth the  Non Paper's terms of reference.
  • Paragraph 199 of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action that recommended to the Commission on Human Rights, now replaced by the Human Rights Council, to elaborate complementary intenational standards aimed at strengthening and updating international instruments against all forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance. 
  • Decision 3/IO3 of the Human Rights Council that decides, in pursuance of decision and instruction of the 2001 World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance to establish an Ad Hoc Committee of the Human Rights Council with the mandate to elaborate, as a matter of priority and necessity, complementary standards in the form of either a convention or additional protocol (s) to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racism, racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and related Intolerance that will ill the existing gaps in the Convention and also provide new normative  texts aimed at combating all forms of contemporary racism, including incitement to racial and religious hatred.   
  • Resolution 6/21 of the Human Rights Council on the elaboration of new international complementary standards to the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination.
The following listed phrases are critical because they are encoded to conceal the true intentions of the committee.
  • all forms of racism
  • related intolerance
  • incitement to racial and religious hatred
We must always bear in mind how the United Nations twist the English language!!! The following quote is from 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;

Islamophobia = racism!!!

    The Ambassador directed the member states to keep in mind::

all views expressed and contributions made within the framework of the follow-up mechanisms of the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action, including:

  • The survey of the five experts on the nature and the scope of substantive gaps, with regard to issues of content in the existing international instruments to combat racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance (A/HRC/4/W G.3/ 6) ; 
  • The document of the Committee on the Elimination of racial discrimination on possible measures to strengthen the implementation of the final observations by adopting new recommendations  by updating its monitoring procedures (All-IRC/4/WG.3/7) 
  • The responses provided by the Committee ou the Elimination of racial discrimination to the questionnaire by the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights pursuant to decision PC.1/ 10 of the Preparatory Committee of the Durban Review Conference (A/CON'F.2l1/PC.2/CRP.5) including the relevant points of view made by the Members ofthe Committee on behalf ofthe latter; ~ 
  • The Report of the 5th session of the Intergovernmental Working Group on the Effective implementation of the Durban Conference and Prcgrarnmc of Action (A/HCR/6/10) and all relevant recommendations and conclusions adopted by this Group since its creation, particularly those contained in document(AH.CR/AC.!/I/CRP.2); 
  • The discussions that took place during the first session of the Ad hoc Committee on complementary standards, held from 18 to 2l February 2008. 

    The Ambassador lists the following revelations from the two previous sessions.
  • There is global collective agreement and commitment expressed during the 2001 World Conference against racism on the principle of claborating international complementary standards to strengthen and update the international instruments against all forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance (para 199 of the Durban Programme  of Action); 
  • However, no consensus was reached on how the specific form of/manner of giving concrete expression to this commiuncnt in priciple; 
  • We must also bear in mind the ensuing debate on the links between articles 19 and 20 of the International Covenant on civil and political rights and the expert meeting of 2 and 3 October 2008, whereafter  it was reiterated that the fundamental right of freedom of expression is compatible with the prohibition of any call for national, racial or religious hatred which constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility and violence; 
  • It is thus imperative to reach the largest possible agreement, through the Ad hoc Committee on  complementary standards, on concrete ways and means to implement the commitment in principle made: during the 2001 World Conference against racism. 
  • The approach suggested to achieve this goal is to stimulate, in a positive and inclusive spirit, concrete proposals on the fields and themes laid out in the "Non paper" for which complementary standardized provisions or other measures designed to fill protection gaps, are necessary.
    Of course, the revelations repeat certain code phrases.
  • all forms of racism
  • related intolerance
    Next, we encounter a reference to ICCPR.
  • the fundamental right of freedom of expression is compatible with the prohibition of any call for national, racial or religious hatred which constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility and violence
Muslims, liars, lawyers & U.N. bureaucrats do not use words the way normal people do. "call for national, racial or religious hatred which constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility and violence" means any criticism of Islam, specifically the Danish Cartoons & Fitna. In this context, it is asserted that censorship of criticism of Islam does not interfere with freedom of expression.

    The Non-Paper begins with a listing of its Purpose, scope and parameters:

  • Implementing paragraph 199 of the Programme of Action of the World Conference against racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance, in which the Conference "Rec0Recommends 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", as well as the relevant Human Rights Council resolutions, in particular decision 3/103 . 
  • The need to enhance efforts to counter contemporary and emerging forms of manifestations of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance.
  • The need to strengthen the monitoring procedures of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination with a view to enable it to undertake the responsibilities entrusted to it in a more effective manner.
  • The need to address double or multiple discrimination   a continuing source of concern, as it affects certain individuals and groups, in particular gender-related racial discrimination and double discrimination on the grounds of race and religion.
  • The imperative to ensure that measures to combat terrorism respect the fundamental principles and the universally recognized standards of international law, international human rights law and international humanitarian Law. 
  • The urgency of addressing racial profiling and eliminating it as a pervasive form of discrimination.
  • The need for uniform and consistent application of the law at the national and international levels to ensure the effectiveness of international efforts to counter racism and racial discrimination.
  • The need to recognize that The prohibition of the dissemination of all ideas based upon racial superiority or hatred and the prohibition of incitement to national, racial -· or religious hatred are compatible with the freedom of opinion and expression.  
  • The principle of regarding provocative portrayals of objects of religious veneration as a malicious violation of the spirit of tolerance which must also be a feature of  democratic society. 
  • The need to re-emphasize that the prohibition of publication of material with the aim of protecting the rights of others and against seriously or gratuitously offensive attacks on matters regarded as sacred by the followers of any religion is a legitimate State objective.
  • The need for national and international law to provide adequate legal responses to propaganda of a racist and xenophobia nature committed through computer systems. 
  • The need to follow the growing trend in many States to include, in their criminal I legislation, offenses in which religious motives are an aggravating factor.
Once again, the code phrases rear their ugly heads.
  • related intolerance  =  Islamophobia = any criticism of Islam.
  • contemporary and emerging forms of manifestations of racism =  Islamophobia = any criticism of Islam.
  • measures to combat terrorism respect the fundamental principles and the universally recognized standards of intemational law, international human rights law and international humanitarian Law.   This is a direct attack on surveillance of young Muslim males,  such as the "magnificent 19"  and other perpetrators of mass casualty attacks. Suspicion of Muslims = "racial profiling":.
  • racial profiling
  • The need to recognize that The prohibition of the dissemination of all ideas based upon racial superiority or hatred and the prohibition of incitement to national, racial -· or religious hatred are compatible with the freedom of opinion and expression.  A repetition of the egregious attack upon free speech. The reference is to the Danish Cartoons and Fitna.
  • provocative portrayals of objects of religious veneration as a malicious violation of the spirit of tolerance This is another reference to the Danish Cartoons. 
  • The need to re-emphasize that the prohibition of publication of material with the aim of protecting the rights of others and against seriously or gratuitously offensive attacks on matters regarded as sacred by the followers of any religion is a legitimate State objective.  Refer to the quotes from Reliance of the Traveller in the initial post  of this series. 
  • propaganda of a racist and xenophobia nature committed through computer systems.  This is an attack upon blog posts and web sites which expose Islam's damnable doctrines. 
    Eight specific themes are listed, here is #3.

3- Terrorism, racial discrimination and racial profiling:

  1. A definition of racial profiling, prioritizing human rights protection, could be elaborated and agreed upon.
  2. States must ensure that measures to combat terrorism do not discriminate, in purpose or effect on ·grounds of race, colour, descent or national or ethnic origin, as well as on religious grounds, bearing in mind in this context the intersectionality between racial and religious discrimination.
  3. Profiling based on stereotypes founded on grounds of discrimination prohibited by international law, including on racial, ethnic and/or religious grounds must be prohibited by law. 

    Who practices terrorism?  Are the majority of terror attacks perpetrated by little old ladies from Iceland?  Terrorism is an intrinsic sacrament of Islam, established as such by 3:151, 8:12., 8:60, 33:26, 59:2 & 59:13.  When you hear hoof beats, they probably come from horses, not from unicorns.  Profiling according to current trends in the identity of perpetrators is common sense.  Islam is acting through the UN to disarm us.

    The fifth listed theme gets down to detail.

5- Incitement to racial, national and religious hatred

  1. There is a need for further clarifying and reinforcing at the international level existing obligations on the eradication of all incitement to hatred and ' discrimination in any form and to prohibit by law, propaganda for war and advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to  discrimination, hostility or violence.
  2. In this context, complementary standards to be developed should observe the following parameters: 
    • Article 4 of ICERD shall be extended to the crime of incitement to racial hatred covering offenses motivated by religious hatred against immigrant communities. 
    • The protection provided shall extend to all individuals and groups within the jurisdiction of the State Party. 
    • The prohibitions shall equally cover acts committed by any individual, group or organization, including political and media organizations as well as by national or local public authorities. 
    • The provisions shall apply to any act which, in purpose or effect, incites discrimination, hostility or violence.
    • In order to achieve consistent and uniform application and maximize protection for actual or potential victims, any doubt as to the existence of a causal link between an act of incitement and the likelihood of a violation, or the threshold required for reaching such a determination, shall be interpreted in a consistent and coherent manner at the national and international levels so as to ensure appropriate protection of the concerned individuals or groups. 
    • Addressing acts constituting incitement shall apply whether such acts have aims which are internal or external to the State concerned. 
    • Requisite standards would explicitly not prohibit advocacy of the sovereign right to self-defence or the right of peoples to self-determination and independence in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations. 
    • Requisite complementary standards shall include the prohibition of publication of material that direct seriously offensive attacks on matters regarded by followers of any religion or belief as sacred or inherent to their dignity as human beings, with the aim of protecting them against such attacks. 
  3.    In line with the above parameters, States' general obligations would include: 
    • Undertaking to 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. 
    • Asserting, in the relevant specific legislation, that such propaganda and advocacy are contrary to public policy. 
    • Providing for appropriate sanction, including of a criminal nature, in case of violation. 

    The listed item under sub section c would appear to be straightforward. It is not. Muslims, liars, lawyers and U.N. Bureaucrats do not use the English language to communicate, they use it to deceive! In evidence whereof I cite the egregious remarks of the Secretary General  on the subject of Fitna, the short documentary by Girt Wielders.

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.”

Fitna does not incite violence, it documents incitement contained in the Qur'an and propagated by Imams in their Mosques

    The program of the Ad Hoc Committee runs parallel to the programs of the General Assembly and Human Rights Council in their resolutions combating "defamation of religion" and that of the Durban II review conference.  Those programs are documented in detail and their egregious hypocrisy exposed and documented in the following listed blog posts..

Post a comment Tags: free expression, durban, fitna, icerd, complementary standards, related intolerance