Freedom Ain’t Free & Take Our Country Back

VICTORY Is Not Defeat

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.

 

November 28, 2009 Posted by | Political Correctness, United Nations | , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

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.

November 17, 2009 Posted by | Political Correctness | , , , , | Leave a comment

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 CartoonsFitna 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.

November 5, 2009 Posted by | United Nations | , , , , | 3 Comments

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:

November 3, 2009 Posted by | United Nations | , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

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.

October 13, 2009 Posted by | Political Correctness, United Nations | , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

Ad Hoc Cmte: Iranian Submission


Outline for the Ad Hoc Committee on Complementary Standards Consultations

An additional mechanism, the Ad Hoc Committee on Complementary Standards was created by the Human Rights Council in 2006 to fill gaps in CERD, and to provide new normative standards aimed at combating all forms of contemporary aspects of racism.

The committee’s mission is to write new international legislation to criminalize criticism of Islam. They solicited suggestions from the member nations to get the process started.

The Iranian submission begins on page 12 of the pdf. and ends on page 17. Although capturing the attitude & meaning of the document through excerpts is not satisfactory, I will not reproduce the entire five page submission here. You can click through to the pdf file and enter 12 in the page window to go directly to the full text of the submission.

The pdf is a scanned document, requiring the use of ocr to cull excerpts. Unfortunately, the printer which created the document needs a head cleaning, and the plate on which it was scanned is dusty, so that ocr was extremely difficult. I have therefore run the spelling checker on the excerpts, they may deviate slightly from the original, but care has been taken to avoid changing the meaning of the text. [Emphasis added.]

The Iranian submission is not novel, it rehashes malicious malarkey from previous resolutions. The following documents were referenced in the text.

They are off to a fast start in their Introduction, asserting that Islamophobia is a growing trend, becoming pervasive and often officially condoned.

The growing trend of defamation of religions is arising from the following factors: the conflation of race, culture and religion, concept of clash of civilizations and religions, all these provides fertile soil for the defamation of religions.
And also on the fight against terrorism, based on defense of national identity and security, it is reduced to religious
dimension.

Note the clause which I emphasized. Who is it that conflates race with religion? If you can’t answer that question, re-read the initial post in this series :
Ad Hoc Committee on Complementary Standards, paying close attention to the quote from the report of the African Regional Conference in preparation for the Durban Review.

Unfortunately, insults and intolerance against Islam are being provided intellectual justification by Western scholars
and political lobbies who espouse anti-Islamic agendas, hence lending support to ideological violence against
Muslims. Sophisticated slogans are used to provoke systematic insults against Islam. This phenomenon reflects
the Islarnophobia which afflicts segments of western society.

This paragraph inverts cause and effect. We developed anti-Islamic agendas precisely because of Islam’s anti-Christian & anti-western doctrines, agendas & actions. Our accurate descriptions of Islamic doctrines & practices are labled insults and intolerance. Accurate and well documented descriptions of Islamic sanctification & mandate of genocidal conquest and terrorism are labled “insults” and “intolerance”.
The last paragraph of the introduction is severely overloaded by implicit reference to the documents listed and linked above.

Lack of action to prevent the reprinting of blasphemous caricatures, and indifference in airing the inflammatory documentary against the holy Quran will be perceived as manifestation of insincerity towards the principles and objectives of various efforts within the United Nations system aiming at promoting understanding and respect among cultures and civilizations. [Links added.]

It should now be clear to you that the Iranian agenda includes criminalizing criticism of Islam, specifically the Danish Cartoons and Geert Wilders’ Fitna.

The cartoons depict Muhammad as a terrorist, which, by his own admission, he was. He never threw a bomb, because explosives were invented after he died. he used the primitive weaponry available in the seventh century to terrorize his victims with ruthless slaughter. If you do not comprehend this fact, open your Qur’an to 33:26, 59:2 & 59:13 and read them carefully.

Fitna demonstrates the obvious connection between Islamic doctrine enshrined in the Qur’an. This fact is documented in another blog post. It is extremely unlikely that anyone else will reveal to you the source of Islam’s intense determination to criminalize criticism of itself. I will: It comes from Islamic law, codified in Reliance of the Traveller. Book O, which treats of “Justice”, includes an outline of the conditions imposed upon dhimmis, who were “people of the book” subjugated by Muslims under a “treaty of protection”. Chapter 11.10 lists five acts which violate the treaty of protection and subject the dhimmi to immediate execution. Here is the fifth item in that list.

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

The perceptive reader will want to know what is impermissible to mention. O8.7 lists 20 items which entail apostasy, and describes the list as nearly endless. Here are a few relevant items from that list.

-1- to prostrate to an idol, whether sarcastically, out of mere contrariness, or in actual conviction, like that of someone who believes the Creator to be something that has originated in time. Like idols in this respect are the sun or moon, and like prostration is bowing to other than Allah, if one intends reverence towards it like the reverence due to Allah;

-2- to intend to commit unbelief, even if in the future. And like this intention is hesitating whether to do so or not: one thereby immediately commits unbelief;

-3- to speak words that imply unbelief such as “Allah is the third of three,” or “I am Allah”-unless one’s tongue has run away with one, or one is quoting another, or is one of the friends of Allah Most High (wali, def: w33) in a spiritually intoxicated state of total oblivion (A: friend of Allah or not, someone totally oblivious is as if insane, and is not held legally responsible (dis: k13.1(O:) ) ), for these latter do not entail unbelief;

-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;

-14- to deny the obligatory character of something which by the consensus of Muslims (ijma`, def: B7) is part of Islam, when it is well known as such, like the prayer (salat) or even one rak’a from one of the five obligatory prayers, if there is no excuse (def: u2.4);

-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;

-17- to believe that things in themselves or by their own nature have any causal influence independent of the will of Allah;

-18- to deny the existence of angels or jinn (def: w22), or the heavens;

-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). )

By now you must be wondering about the penalty. Islamic law has that covered, too.

O8.1

When a person who has reached puberty and is sane voluntarily apostatizes from Islam, he deserves to be killed.

O8.2

In such a case, it is obligatory for the caliph (A: or his representive) to ask him to repent and return to Islam. If he does, it is accepted from him, but if he refuses, he is immediately killed.

Islamic law is clear on its face: any criticism of Allah or his Messenger gets you killed. The Ad Hoc Committee On Complementary Standards is only the latest tool developed in pursuit of that objective.

Under the heading of “Legal Aspects”, Iran describes the cartoons & Fitna as “inconsistent with the spirit of the UN Charter” and various resolutions.

The elimination of discrimination and the protection against Intolerance is in part a matter of legal protection.

They jabber on with quotes about universal freedom, equality and dignity, without finding anything relevant to the matter at hand. The next paragraph is mired in excrement.

Crucially, according to- article 20, paragraph.2 of the ICCPR, ” any advocacy of national, racial or religious hatred that constitutes incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence shall be prohibited by law” This provision represents a clear limitation to-the night to fee speech which according to article 19 of the ICCPR carries with it special duties and responsibilities.

The cartoons do not advocate hatred, nor do they incite discrimination, hostility or violence. The same is true of Fitna. Few will perceive the irony in Islam’s specious assertion: it is their own scripture, tradition & jurisprudence which advocates hatred and incites violence. If Article 20 were to be enforced, the Qur’an, hadith & Shari’ah would be banned as incitement to violence!

The committee on civil and Political Rights in its general comment 11 provided that these required prohibitions are fully compatible with the right to freedom of expression as contained in Article 19, the exercise of which carries with it special duties and responsibilities. This is clear indication that human rights instruments recognize provisions against incitement to religions hatred as being a completely legitimate- safeguard against the abuse of the right to free speech.

Iran is asserting that accurately describing Allah’s genocidal Jihad imperatives which are found in Surahs Al-Anfal & At-Taubah and confirmed in Sahih Bukhari’s Books of Jihad, Khumus & Expedition and codified in Reliance of the Traveller Book O, Chapter 9, Paragraphs 8 & 9 must be legally prohibited as “incitement to religious hatred”. Islamic obedience to those imperatives has resulted in 270*106 premature deaths in the last 1400 years but we must be prevented, by judicial penalties, from mentioning it.

Identifying the enemy and describing his doctrines is characterized as an abuse of free speech. This is nothing less than the aggressor’s program for depriving us of the ability to defend ourselves against his aggression.

The last section of the submission is under the heading of Programme of Action.

In sum, the right to freedom of expression should be exercised with the responsibilities and limitations as prescribed by law. The international community should initiate a global dialogue to promote a culture of tolerance and peace based on respect for human rights and cultural diversity and urges states, NGOs, religious bodies and media to support and promote such a dialogue. Developing the human rights language to address emerging issues such as defamation of religions was an important step forward that is of interest not only to Muslims but to all the internatioual community.

Our freedom of expression must not include mention of Islam’s aggressive doctrines & practices: conquest, genocide & terrorism. A culture of tolerance and peace means being led, dumb like sheep, to the slaughter.

Islamic Republic of Iran urges the Ad hoc Committee on the elaboration of complementary standards to call upon the States to stop the publication of blasphemous caricatures, Elms and media as well as the campaigns for anti-Islamic regulations to take all possible legal and administrative measures to prevent continuation of these deliberate offensive acts, which impinge greatly on the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion of the followers of Islam.

They want to add wording to ICERD to criminalize every criticism of Islam. How in Hell does anything we write or say impinge on the liberty of Muslims? Why must they be allowed to continue in the arrogant assumption that they have a divine right and mission to kill, enslave, rape, pillage & plunder us?

August 1, 2009 Posted by | Political Correctness | , , , , , | 7 Comments

   

%d bloggers like this: