Posted by Iranian on May 12, 2009, 10:46 pm, in reply to "Islamic States Push to Criminalize 'Defamation of Islam'"
71.107.52.119
Roughly how are you?
--Previous Message--
: Peter Glover Peter Glover – Wed Mar
: 25, 8:30 am ET
:
: A powerful bloc of 57 Islamic states
: is again pushing for the UN to make
: it a criminal offense to criticise
: or 'defame' Islam. In a new
: resolution circulated at a session
: of the UN Human Rights Council in
: Geneva on March 11, a paper entitled
: "Combating Defamation of
: Religions" was circulated ahead
: of the Council's next meeting on
: March 26-27, when the resolution
: will be voted on.
:
: Though the 57 nations of the
: Organization of the Islamic
: Conference (OIC), a bloc which also
: dominates the UN's Human Rights
: Council, have been lobbying for the
: move since 1999, the signs this time
: are that the resolution could well
: be made binding. While the
: resolution calls for protection
: against "defamation" of
: all religions, it only mentions
: Islam by name.
:
: The resolution deems offending
: Islamic sensitivities a
: "serious affront to human
: dignity" which could lead to
: "social disharmony",
: "violations of human
: rights" and "incitement to
: religious hatred in general and
: against Islam in particular".
: If passed, the resulting binding
: resolution would find its way into
: various UN documents all of which
: would require that UN member states
: at "local, national and
: international levels" start
: restricting the free speech of
: citizens to prevent public criticism
: of religious beliefs, particularly
: Islamic belief.
:
: Such is the domination of the UN HRC
: by Islamic states, backed by
: non-democratic members including
: Russia and Cuba, that the human
: rights agency UN Watch believes the
: "adoption of the regressive
: resolution is a foregone
: conclusion". Last December,
: Hillel Neuer, executive director of
: UN Watch told Radio Free Europe that
: Islamic states were pursuing
: "the diplomatic battle with a
: vengeance" because of the post
: 9/11 war on terror and the issue of
: the Danish depictions of the prophet
: Mohammed. As Neuer pointed out,
: "The resolutions pose a major
: threat to the premises and
: principles of international human
: rights laws and harm Muslims as much
: as non-Muslims." Neuer went on
: to cite the failure of the Islamic
: states to address human rights
: violations in Muslim countries. He
: also pointed out that the latest
: resolution is "not really
: trying to protect individuals from
: harm" but is attempting
: "to shield a set of beliefs
: from question or debate."
:
: The resolution's use of the phrase
: 'defamation of religion' is also
: misleading. Under the terms of human
: rights law there is no such legal
: concept. Laws on defamation, in most
: Western countries, exist to protect
: the reputation of individuals, not
: belief systems or religions.
:
: UN Watch's Neuer describes the
: resolution's text as
: "Orwellian" and warns that
: it distorts the meaning of human
: rights, free speech and religious
: freedom. He also points out that a
: binding resolution would first
: target "moderate Muslims"
: and that: "Next to suffer from
: the UN-sanctioned McCarthyism will
: be writers and journalists in the
: democratic West." The text
: singles out the freedom of the
: Western media which allows for
: 'deliberate stereotyping of
: religions, their adherents and
: sacred persons.'
:
: The vote, at the end of March, comes
: ahead of the UN's World Conference
: Against Racism in Geneva, April
: 20-24. This conference is due to be
: a follow-up 'review' of the UN's
: infamous Durban conference in 2001
: which Islamists deteriorated into a
: attack on Israel which many
: participants viewed as antisemitic
: in tone. Fears are rife that April's
: 'Durban 2' will simply provide the
: same Arab states with yet another
: global platform from which to launch
: a similar attack on Israel. Canada
: has already withdrawn because of the
: antisemitic tone of key documents.
: Australia is threatening to withdraw
: for the same reason. Italy, France,
: Germany and others have all notified
: their misgivings to the UNCHR. The
: United States, which walked out with
: the Israelis at Durban in 2001 when
: a resolution compared Zionism with
: racism, is also threatening to
: withdraw. The Israelis, not
: surprisingly, will not be attending.
:
: Perversely, the very forum being
: sponsored by the UN's Human Rights
: Council to work for improved human
: rights and against racism, has and
: is providing Islamic nations, many
: of whom have some of the worst
: records of human rights abuses in
: the world, with a global platform
: which openly espouses perjorative
: and racist anti-Semitic language
: against Israel's Jewish population.
: If the UN Human Rights Council does
: go ahead and endorse the resolution,
: aimed at criminalizing 'defamation
: of Islam', at the end of March and
: the April conference it will amount
: to a major blow against free speech
: and as a further appeasement to
: Islamist bigotry.
:
: Just as good in terms of 'promoting
: better global relations', how about
: taking up US TV commentator Lou
: Dobbs suggestion that we,
: "bulldoze the large piece of
: real estate on the east side of
: Manhattan (UN Plaza) - and build
: something useful". Or would
: that too deny Islamists their most
: effective weapon in the Jihad
: against Western free speech?
:
:
:
Message Thread:
« Back to thread